P75(I) Submarine Project

India’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) is poised for decision regarding the P75(I) submarine project. This initiative, valued at Rs 70,000 crore, aims to modernise India’s submarine fleet. The focus is on integrating Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology to enhance stealth and operational capabilities. The DAC will choose between two contenders – Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) with Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (tKMS) or L&T in collaboration with Spain’s Navantia.

Technical Oversight in Bid Selection

The selection process has been rigorous. A technical oversight committee from the Ministry of Defence assessed the bids. MDL’s proposal with tKMS met all technical criteria. In contrast, L&T and Navantia’s submission failed primarily due to issues with the AIP system. This assessment is crucial as it determines which bid advances to the commercial evaluation stage.

Next Steps in the Evaluation Process

Following the technical evaluation, MDL’s commercial bid will be opened. This phase will involve detailed discussions regarding both technical and financial aspects. Once these discussions conclude, the bid will be submitted for approval to higher authorities. This step is essential for finalising the contract and advancing the project.

Importance of AIP Technology

AIP technology is a vital component of the P75(I) project. It allows submarines to operate submerged for extended periods without surfacing. This capability enhances stealth and extends operational range. tKMS offers a proven AIP solution, while Navantia’s bioethanol-based system is still under development and will not be available until 2026. The choice of AIP technology will influence not only operational performance but also the strategic defence relationships between India and these European nations.

Strategic Implications for India’s Naval Strategy

The DAC’s decision is more than a technical evaluation. It carries strategic significance. Selecting tKMS could strengthen defence ties with Germany, encouraging deeper technological collaboration. Conversely, choosing Navantia would enhance India’s relationship with Spain and expand engagement with European defence partners. The P75(I) submarines are expected to be critical to India’s maritime capabilities, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Delivery Timeline and Future Prospects

The first submarine is projected to be delivered seven years after the contract is signed. If finalised in 2025, delivery could begin in 2032. The timeline allows for comprehensive testing and integration of AIP systems. While ambitious, delays are common in defence procurement. However, once operational, these submarines will boost India’s underwater capabilities.

Current Status and Urgency of Decision

Delays in finalising the P75(I) contract have created a sense of urgency. The Indian Navy’s field evaluation report indicated that the tKMS submarine met all requirements. Meanwhile, L&T and Navantia have contested their bid’s rejection. The DAC’s upcoming meeting is critical for clarifying the project’s future direction.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically discuss the significance of Air Independent Propulsion technology in modern submarine warfare.
2. Examine the implications of India’s choice between Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Spain’s Navantia for its defence strategy.
3. Estimate the potential impact of the P75(I) submarine project on India’s maritime capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region.
4. Analyse the challenges faced by India’s Defence Acquisition Council in the procurement process of high-tech defence projects.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically discuss the significance of Air Independent Propulsion technology in modern submarine warfare.

1. AIP technology allows submarines to stay submerged longer, enhancing stealth and reducing detection risk.
2. It improves operational range, enabling submarines to conduct extended missions without surfacing.
3. AIP systems contribute to tactical advantages in naval engagements, allowing for surprise attacks and evasion.
4. Countries with advanced AIP technology gain strategic leverage in regional conflicts and power projection.
5. The integration of AIP in submarines reflects advancements in naval warfare, shaping future maritime strategies.

2. Examine the implications of India’s choice between Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Spain’s Navantia for its defence strategy.

1. Choosing TKMS could deepen India-Germany defence ties, promoting technological collaboration and knowledge transfer.
2. Opting for Navantia may enhance India’s relationship with Spain, encouraging broader European defence partnerships.
3. The decision will influence India’s strategic posture in the Indo-Pacific, affecting regional security dynamics.
4. Each partnership presents unique technological benefits and challenges that could impact operational capabilities.
5. The choice reflects India’s broader geopolitical strategies in balancing relations with Western powers and European nations.

3. Estimate the potential impact of the P75(I) submarine project on India’s maritime capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region.

1. The P75(I) submarines will enhance India’s underwater warfare capabilities, providing modern stealth and offensive options.
2. These submarines will improve India’s deterrence posture in the Indo-Pacific, countering regional threats effectively.
3. Increased submarine capabilities will support India’s strategic interests in securing maritime trade routes.
4. The project aligns with India’s vision of becoming a net security provider in the region, encouraging alliances.
5. Operational submarines will enhance intelligence-gathering and surveillance capabilities in contested maritime areas.

4. Analyse the challenges faced by India’s Defence Acquisition Council in the procurement process of high-tech defence projects.

1. Complexity of high-tech systems leads to lengthy evaluation processes, often causing delays in decision-making.
2. Balancing cost, performance, and indigenous capabilities poses challenges in meeting strategic requirements.
3. Ensuring compliance with evolving technical standards and specifications can disqualify otherwise strong bids.
4. Political and bureaucratic hurdles often complicate timely approvals and contract finalizations.
5. Competition between foreign and domestic suppliers creates pressure to ensure fair and transparent evaluations.