As P-75(I) contract concludes, time to reflect if it truly advances India’s strategic objectives
Cdr Shrikumar Sangiah
The tale of Sisyphus, from Greek mythology, serves as an allegory for the human condition. It offers profound insights into life, especially when viewed through the lens of absurdist philosophy as articulated by Albert Camus in his book The Myth of Sisyphus. In the tale, King Sisyphus is condemned by the Gods to eternally roll a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down each time it nears the top, symbolising an endless, futile struggle.
Sisyphus embodies the human condition—we strive for purpose, meaning, and fulfilment, yet are often met with the reality of life’s seeming pointlessness and its repetitive nature. Sisyphus’ punishment reflects the tasks we face daily—work, personal goals, relationships—all of which often seem to lead nowhere or merely reset upon completion.
The harking back to Sisyphus’ travails and to Camus, here, is not to undertake a philosophical examination of life’s inherent absurdities. Sisyphus’ tale offers a neat parallel to the rollercoaster of emotions that the officials steering the P-75(I) submarine project likely experienced, as they shepherded it through its many twists and turns since it was first conceived in 1997.
The P-75(I) team’s troubles might, finally, be nearing an end. According to recent news reports, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) is close to finalising the winner of the Rs 70,000 crore P-75(I) contract. The selection process has been tortuous, especially with regard to the decision on the eligibility of the bids vis-a-vis the technical criteria contained in the Request for Proposal (RFP).
A technical oversight committee is understood to have examined the technical bids and decided that Mazagon Docks Limited’s (MDL) bid, in partnership with ThyssenKrupp Marine Services (TKMS), Germany, qualifies under the criteria set out in the RFP. Also, according to the same news reports, the L&T-Navantia bid has been disqualified for its non-compliance with the technical requirements related to the Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system.
As the next step, MDL’s commercial bid will be opened, the technical and financial terms discussed and finalised. The bid, with the negotiated terms, will then be submitted for final approval—paving the way for signing the contract.
A Potted History
In the Nineties, Naval Headquarters undertook a review of the Indian Navy’s (IN) present and future submarine force levels. The review led to the formulation of the 30-year Submarine Perspective Plan (Project for Series Construction of Submarines for the Indian Navy and Acquisition of National Competence in Submarine Building). The perspective plan was the IN’s blueprint for maintaining and augmenting its submarine force level. The plan, recommended the establishment of two production lines, in India, for two different classes of submarines. The plan provided the IN with a roadmap to seamlessly transition from the Shishumar and Sindhughosh class submarines to the next generation of submarines.
In 1999, the 30-year plan was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). The plan envisaged the construction of 24 submarines in India over a 30-year period up to 2030. It recommended the construction of 12 submarines with Russian assistance and 12 with western assistance to preclude over-reliance on any one source. This led to the birth of Project 75 and Project 75(I), of two different submarine designs, to be built in India, concurrently.
In the first phase, for the construction of 12 submarines of western design, two options were considered—the first being the construction of the Type 209/1500 submarines at MDL with the assistance of Thomson CSF and the second based on the newer ‘Scorpene’ design (offered by the French naval firm, Armaris (later DCNS, now Naval Group)). Eventually, the IN chose the Scorpene design, since it was seen as superior to the Type 209/1500 and was offered with the provision of a full transfer of technology (ToT).
The second phase, christened the Project-75 (India) or P-75(I), was to commence concurrently with the P-75, with the two projects set to deliver 18 conventional submarines by 2030. However, financial constraints led to the P-75 becoming the only project sanctioned, with the target of building six submarines. The construction of the six submarines was to be completed at MDL between 2012 and 2016. The project, however, encountered numerous delays during execution and the sixth and final P-75 submarine was commissioned into the IN only in January 2025.
In 2008, the IN issued the first request for information (RFI) for P-75(I) submarines to the Naval Group, HDW, the Rubin Design Bureau, and Navantia. In 2010, the project received the first in-principle approval, the Acceptance of Necessity (AoN), from the DAC. Its initial plan envisaged the construction of three of the six P-75(I) submarines at MDL, one at Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL), Visakhapatnam, and the outright purchase of the remaining two directly from the selected foreign vendor at a total budget of approximately of Rs 50,000 crores. However, the IN was keen on the participation of private Indian shipyards in the project and disagreed with the DAC’s plan. This difference in opinion led to a two-year period of inaction during which the AoN expired twice.
In 2014, the DAC revived the project with a modified plan to build all six submarines in India, with foreign assistance. Together with MDL and HSL, two additional defence public sector undertaking (DPSU) shipyards—the Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL) and Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), and two private shipyards, L&T and Pipavav Shipyard—were invited to participate in the bidding process.
In 2017, the ministry of defence (MoD) announced that the P-75(I) project would be the first defence project to be pursued under the newly introduced Strategic Partnership (SP) policy. Later the same year, in July 2017, the MoD issued a RFI for the construction of six P-75(I) submarines to six foreign shipyards: Rosoboronexport/Rubin Design Bureau (Russia), Navantia (Spain), Saab (Sweden), TKMS (Germany), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) and Naval Group (France).
You must be logged in to view this content.