what I mean is that it’s often easier to design your own new hull than to adapt an existing one.
Space is not the only requirement, weight is a lot more. You can do practically anything with it, but it has its limits. Putting Brahmos and Barak-II might cause additional weight, more stress on certain frames, maybe even a trim. Warships are generally designed to have some remaining stability and as far as I know most navy officers don’t even know how to calculate stability as their ships’ changing big weights are often just fuel and a helicopter and those are taken in account during design.
However a trim change will affect fuel consumption and speed. Just a few remarks.
So all together it’s easier to design a ship knowing certain specifications than to adapt an existing hull that was built for other specs.

This all makes sense to me, so I shall revise my comments from a suggestion that the existing off-the-shelf FREMM etc designs would be made to fit the required armaments and sensors to something more along the lines of the design philosophy which went into the vessel being carried over into something appropriate for the IN requirement, followed by detail design.

That means that 800mlln for a 4,500t vessel is quite a huge budget.

Bronco, you can’t just exchange things. Brahmos is a lot bigger and heavier than Exocet and that would bring quite some complications.
FREMM doesn’t really have a good radar as she’s not meant to have any long range weapons. Would bring quite some trouble to change it as its mounted pretty high, so all the additional weight could cause topweight problems (and so on, just one example of how many problems you can encounter when you change stuff on ships).

If we are talking about making use of an (existing or planned) advanced platform design, modifying it for sensors and weapons used or preferred by the IN then that budget may well be required and would be swallowed up by sensors, combat systems and integration largely rather than cost of the hull.

Seeing as FREMM weighs in at 5,800 t full load currently there should be leeway to accomodate some additional topweight (and Italian Fremm has EMPAR mounted quite high compared to French FREMM) and the space allocated for Aster 15/30 and Scalp cruise missiles should be able to accomodate BrahMos and Barak II.

Initially, observers were of the opinion that India’s own nuclear submarine may not fructify even by 2007, but now with the categorical assertion that Sagarika is slated for September 2001 underwater trials, the culmination of the project within the specified time frame may just about be possible.

They inventing time travel also, typo or am I just misreading the whole thing?
Definition of what was to happen by 2007 seems unclear, if designing, building and commissioning a SSN is what they are talking about then middle of next decade and couple of years of first Scorpene is more realistic, not taking into account any possible hitches.

To be fair I would be equally unhappy about being blasted out of a submarine in such fashion, however the option to simply flood the tube and open doors to allow combat swimmers to exit still remains. A wet/dry lock-out chamber is likely to be more comfortable and suitable for getting special forces and their gear deployed.

2nd batch will also feature Germany”s first subsurface launched missile system, though we are not talking Harpoon and the like here but a rather small optical wire guided missile (IDAS) with a range of 20km. Can be used against (small) ships, land targets and slow flying aircraft/helicopters. Although operational use may be limited i’d be intrigued to see the hoistable mast deployed RMK 30 cannon make its way on the boats.

You sure on that information Pred?. What I’ve read suggests that the Type800 (Dolphin) is a hybrid evolution from the 209 incorporating 212 technology less AIP. 214 is a hull stretch on the 212 design?.

That description of Dolphin heritage matches what I have seen to date. The Type 212 was developed from 1987. Dolphin (IKL Type 800, though the nature of that Type 206A derived Type 800 on that HDW family tree puzzles me) was originally planned in late-1980s and due to be built in US based on 209/212 hybrid design but then cancelled in 1990. Eventually three boats ordered directly from Germany in 1991 after Gulf War at very little cost.

Type 212 was ordered in 1994, but then delayed when Italy came on board for two boats and it was decided to procure (by Germany, which had a lower spec version specified until then) a common design, Type 212A.

Type 214 then is the latest, but not necessarily most capable, design, incorporating 209 and 212A technology in a modular package that facilitates accomodating export customers varying requests. The KSS-II project boats should be very well equipped indeed. By what has been released to date the Portuguese Type 209PN will look very similar. These boats are built from HY80 and HY100 steel. This conveys a greater diving depth that the steel used on Type 212a, which is amagnetic/non-magnetic, more difficult to weld and produce. However according to comments by crew this still allows an operating depth in excess of 200m.

US Tico/Burke 9,000+t 30+ knots COGAG four LM 2500

UK Type-45 7,350t (full load) 27-29 knots IEP (Integrated Electric Propulsion); 2x WR21 Rolls Royce-Northrop Grumman ICR gtu generator sets (incl WR-21 turbines down-rated to 21.5 MW each).
IN Delhi 6700t (full load) 28 knots COGAG four DT-59 reversible gas turbines 64,000 hp total
IT/FR Horizon 6,700t (full load) 29 knots CODOG two GE LM2500/Avio Gas turbine engines 53MW two SEMT Pielstick diesel engines rated at 8.6MW
NL LCF 6,050t (full load) 30 knots CODOG 2x Rolls Royce Spey SM1C (18.5MW each) 2x Stork-Wartsila 16V6ST diesel (8.4MW each)
GE F124 5,960t (full load) 29 knots CODAG 1xGE 7 LM2500 PF/MLG 23,500kW 32,500 shp 2x MTU 20V 1163 TB93 each 7,400kW 19,848 bhp
ES F100 5,800t (full load) 28.5 knots CODAG 2 x GE LM 2500 (34.8MW) 2 x Izar (9MW)
IT Durand De La Penne 5,400t (full load) 31+ knots CODOG 2 x Fiat/GE LM 2500 GT sustained power 40.3MW 2 x GMT BL 230.20 DVM 9.3MW each
NO Nansen 5,130t (full load) >26 knots CODAG 1x GE LM 2500 19.2MW gas turbine 2x Izar Bravo 12V diesel engines 4.5MW
IN Shivalik 5000+ (full load) 30 knots CODOG 2x GE LM 2500 18,000 kW (24,000+ hp) each 2x S.E.M.T. Pielstick 16 PA6 STC diesel engines 5700 kW (7600+ hp) each
IN Kashin 4,974t (full load) 35 knots COGAG 4 M-3 gas turbines 72,000 hp total
CA Halifax 4,750t (full load) >27 knots CODOG 2 x GE LM 2500 1 x SEMT-Pielstick 20PA6 V280 diesel engine, 20-cylinder
GE F 123 4,700t (full load) 29 knots CODOG 2x LM 2500 (33,600 each) 2x MTU ZOV956 TB92 (6,568 hp each)
SA AL RIYADH (F3000S SAWARI II) 4,725t (full load) 24.5 knots CODAD 4 x SEMT Pielstick 16 PA6 STC 5,700kW (7,740hp) each
RU Neustrashimy (Type 11540) 4,200 tons (full load) 30 knots COGAG two main gas turbines providing 35.7MW 37,000 shp and two auxiliary turbines providing 17.8MW 20,000 shp
IN Talwar 4035t (full load) 30 knots COGAG 2 x DS-71 cruise turbines 9000 hp each and 2 x DT-59 boost turbines 19,500 hp each

Now, if we could also look at range @ top speed and range @ cruising speed (15/16kts), as well as fuel burn/hour or day at comparable speeds we could eventually get to the bottom of what constitutes an efficient propulsion layout. Efficiency ratings for the turbines alone should be available somewhere and may well show that Chinese/Russian turbines (as well as older units like Spey etc) are lagging modern units like the WR-21,LM2500+, MT30. Although it will never be a simple equation with the sizes involved, different hull forms etc. Current trends are towards (at least partly) electric drive (FREMM, T 45, F 125, DDG 1000) or advanced mechanical solutions (F 124 via gearbox, or Meko A200SAN with gearbox and waterjet).

Although I do not expect this to happen in the end, the option to produce reasonable large, yet also reasonably quick (in most cases little used sprint speed rather than sustained in any case, with fuel costs going up and up also a little more pressure from the navy accountants to go easy on the throttle), vessels should exist in China with license produced MTU and SEMT Pielstick diesels in the way the Danish Absalon class support vessels (2 engines) and future AAW/patrol frigates (4 engines) are to be powered.

This sounds like it could be a very powerful boat but I would like to see some proper specs and a procurement timeline. It will be interesting to see how this boat stacks up against the Type-214 which seems to be regarded as the current best SSK.

If the figures posted before are credible a couple of questions need
to be raised. The cost appears comparable with Russian Kilo SSKs rather than Scorpene, and S-80/Type209/Type 214 AIP equipped boats.

Timeline could be anything from 2012-2014 under ideal circumstances to 2012-2020 if we take the last programme.

The latest Type 209 (>209PN) and its derivate the Type 214 are based on the venerable Type 209. The Type212A as now in service in Germany and Italy (Type 800 Israeli Dolphin class likely also) is the most advanced boat in the HDW family and uses amagnetic steel rather than high-tensile steel as rest of the family.