Date: 01/09/2022

Relevance: GS-3: Defence, Security, Indigenization of Technology, Developing New Technology

Key Phrases: Indian Navy, Air-Independent Propulsion, Propulsion Technology, Project 75I Submarine, Original Equipment Manufacturer, Lithium-ion Batteries, Technology.

Context:

• Recently Russia has pulled out of the race for building six state-of-the-art diesel-electric submarines for the Indian Navy under the Project-75 (India) or P-75I programme.

Key Highlights:

• Five of six original equipment manufacturers (OEM) that were in contention have now pulled out.
• The only remaining vendor is a South Korean OEM which does have a proven fuel cell air-independent propulsion (AIP) system.
• AIP is a stated requirement under the 75I submarine programme.
• The single-vendor situation has understandably led to uncertainty over the fate of India’s ambitious submarine acquisition programme.
• A German OEM, also possessing a demonstrated fuel cell AIP architecture, was earlier a frontrunner under P-75I but withdrew from the programme last year in 2021.
• The OEM cited as unfeasible clauses relating to indigenous content and nearly unlimited liability on the foreign technology partner.

What is the state of indigenously developing AIP in India?

• The indigenous AIP is still under development on a test bed.
• It is unlikely to be installed on P-75I vessels, given the Indian Navy’s insistence on a proven architecture for this class.

What were the Russia's arguments for the exit?

• While announcing its decision to pull out of the programme, Russia pointed out that no naval force possesses the kind of submarines sought by the Indian Navy.
• “The Swedish were the first one to pull out of the project, then Germany, and now France.
• Underscoring the Russian OEM’s 120-year long history of designing ships and submarines, it stated that the greatest difficulty always lies in constructing the first vessel.
• It would be impossible to complete within the short time period specified in the programme’s request for proposal (RFP).
• According to Russian OEM, the key requirement in the RFP is that submarines have to be constructed in India. If timelines are not met, the penalty is very high.
• It asserts that it is not possible to make the first submarine in such a short time.
• As per Russia, this concern was not considered and an RFP was issued.
• Hence Russia informed the Indian Navy about its unwillingness to participate.

Why is the Indian Navy stressing AIP?

• The AIP requirement is deemed critical by the Indian Navy.
• It would grant its conventionally powered submarines increased underwater endurance.
• The technology would enable these diesel-electric submarines to stay submerged for over a fortnight.
• This period is two-to-three days for current conventional submarines.
• In fact, the Indian Navy’s regional rival—the Pakistan Navy—also operates three AIP-installed French-origin Agosta 90B submarines.
• According to the experts, the need for AIP is immense in operations and during war, especially in dense anti-submarine warfare environments.
• Experts have emphasized the need to guarantee that each foreign OEM participating in the tender offers a proven AIP.
• According to them, “The P-75I submarines are unlikely to enter service before the early 2030s, by which time technology would have advanced even further.
• The AIP-lead acid battery combination would have been superseded by the AIP–lithium-ion battery combination which would provide additional capability to the submarines.

What are the major drawbacks of AIP?

• Despite the afore-discussed ability to enable submarines to remain submerged for longer durations, there are also significant pitfalls of using AIP systems.
• The length of the submarine has to be increased to insert the AIP module.
• It makes the vessel heavier and markedly slower.
• Further, refuelling of the AIP system can only be conducted in a specific facility at the home port.
• This implies that unlike air intakes, AIP systems cannot be charged at sea once discharged.
• This severely limits the operational range and profile of the submarines largely to coastal defence.
• Again, all AIP architectures other than those using fuel cells feature many moving parts which produce noise, and thereby, compromise the submarine’s stealth.
• Even more recent AIP architectures utilising Sterling cycle engines, such as the Soryu class of Japan and the Yuan class of China, grant submarines with submergence capacity only comparable to lithium-ion batteries.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of lithium-ion batteries as compared with AIP?

• The high power output of lithium-ion batteries allows submarines to travel underwater for extended durations at faster speeds, a critical ability for avoiding retaliatory strikes after attacking surface targets.
• While the tendencies of lithium-ion batteries to run away, overcook themselves, and catch fire.
• This would be a nightmarish concern on a submarine packed with hundreds of batteries in close proximity.
• However, Japan has made significant investment in ensuring greater protection and dependability.
• This has been achieved through utilisation of upgraded battery-cell matrices featuring hardened drivers, stabilised chemicals, as well as automatic fire extinguishers.
• It only seems reasonable to expect technical features of lithium-ion propulsion to improve in future.
• Moreover, while fuel cell possesses many virtues, it is highly costly to purchase and sustain compared to AIP architectures like the Sterling engine.
• For instance, Sterling engines feature lower refuelling costs than fuel cells because of the easy obtainability of diesel.
• Finally, proven fuel cell AIP systems are available with only two OEMs of which one has exited the P-75I competition.
• The only remaining OEM is also highly unlikely to be able to meet the terms of the Indian Navy’s submarine tender.

What is the way forward?

• From the Indian Navy’s insistence on an AIP architecture, it appears that extended submergence durations are deemed more critical than the ability to quickly escape on detection post firing at enemy combatants.
• Moreover, the above exhortation naturally entails that the technology avoids obsolescence for at least the next two decades.
• This limits it to fuel cell-based solutions of which only two proven options are available globally. This has led to a single-vendor situation.
• The Indian Navy must, therefore, revisit the fundamental question of whether it wants the newest AIP architecture or the newest propulsion technology.
• This is pertinent in light of the recent advancements and the immense potential of lithium-ion battery-based propulsion technology.
• In the answer to this question may lie the fate of the P-75I programme.

Source: ORF-Online

Mains Question:

Q. Critically examine the mandatory clause of AIP by Indian Navy in the Project 75I submarine. What are the various advantages and disadvantages of using this propulsion technology?