Bharat Rakshak

All of them have already been posted on this thread previously, around 2.5 years ago.

^Why
I don't think these pics show anything we don't already know about.
Or there is something we are unaware

I request you to remove the second pic of the installlations and I mean it.I don't who took that pic but it is not meant to be in a open forum.If you are a patriot please remove that pic

The route taken by INS Chakra from Russia (Sea of Japan) to India (Vizag) is classified. How do you know it took the route you are thinking of.

Sagar Sir,

X- Posting from Chakra thread

Post subject: Re: INS Chakra joins IN - Where is the Mithai?Posted: 07 Apr 2012 23:33

Have no idea how to upload image. Please have a look at shyamd's post

I am getting the strong spider feeling the Arihant itself is sized to carry another 4 tubes though might not be fitted right now.

if not, the aridaman will likely be longer and add these.

missile length does not change in either case and it sets a min floor on the hull diameter. as we have seen in ohio class you can add a shitload of tubes (long sub) without needing to make the hull any bigger than minimum needed to hold the missiles. sure it will likely add 50x4 + 10= 210t to the loaded weight of the sub due to missile and tubes, but not too high a penalty a speed probably. for a 6000t sub thats only 3% weight gain.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=17.705836,83.26414&spn=0.001449,0.002642&t=f&z=19&ecpose=17.70583605,83.26413961,361.09,76.47,0,0

is it Arihant ??

^No
Its a kilo class. Infact both are Kilo class submarines

nope, check out its dimensions.

I was confused due to yellow arrow shaped paint profile on front , is it usual for IN to have it, as I have not seen such coating on any other vessel.

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=141&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1366&bih=667&addh=36&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnszb&tbnid=HtRrL1Kq6mLMMM:&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php%3F208862-is-this-indian-nuclear-submarine-Arihant&docid=XaqBlFiy8nJ3_M&imgurl=http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/varun22/ARIHANT-7

Similar yellow profile on Arihant

its just the marking for the cyclindrical sonar area.
kilos and arihant use the same family of indian sonar.

inshallah we shall open three stream of n-subs in due course
- Arihant++ SSBN class = 8-12 tubes = A3SL payload or in conventional mode 3 X tubes worth of nirbhay
- new hunter-killer 4500t littoral warfare optimized SSN - mainly ASM/mines ... small and speedy
- SSGN class - shore bombardment , vengeance weapon, carrier-killer....anything which needs a huge salvo of medium to large missiles. a loadout of 20 VL-brahmos and 40 Klubs would be good in carrier killer role, or else 60 nirbhay between the vl tubes and torpedo room. a single sub should be able to unleash a devastating barrage on shore targets and slip away.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/120645.jpg

The ATV's missile silos resemble a "4-pack" modular system,which USN subs are following.Thus an ATV could ideally have between 3-4 "4-Packs" is meant to carry just one ICBM per silo.5 ATVs/SSBNs with at least 12 ICBMs per sub,with 3 MIRVs per missile,would give us 180 warheads carried by the underwater leg of the triad.If this constitutes about 1/3rd of our strategic deterrent which includes road and rail mobile ICBM/IRBMs and those by strategic bomber sqds.,,we could have an arsenal of around 400-500 missiles/warheads enough to deter both the PRC and Pak.

Ohio class SSGN has 154 Tomahawks

but its unlikely all tubes are filled unless its a special attack mission giving time to come out with a full warload. one such Ohio SSBN allegedly unleashed its full complement in the first night of attack of libya before slipping away. not to be outdone Bartania sent over a SSN to "unleash" another 5-8 tomahawks in strong support

kind of like a chihuahua providing "backing" for a gorilla.

p.s. I read somewhere khan SSBNs do not normally have all the tubes filled with trident missiles, some are empty. having 18 subs, atleast 3-4 would be on deterrent patrol any given time, and with MIRV capability they dont need too many tubes to flatten anyone.

154 Tomahawks is indeed the max load out for the Ohio SSGN. The Ohio SSBN with 24 Trident D5s with 10 MIRVs each. So that one sub has more nukes than the entire UQ. BTW that India Today article by Sandeep Unnithan said India was the sixth country to have underwater ballistic missile launch technology. It is actually the fifth( Umrikah, Ivan, France, China, Yindia). Tridents gifted to UQ obviously can't be counted. The Indian press should always publicize this fact along with the fact that the UQ has no indigenous satellite launch capabilities.

Now that Briturd aid has been stopped, India should offer aid to Briturd's space program, should they ever start one

Philip, unless each mirv can take 200kt thermowalas, then I see a good pic of that configuration. Now, I don't want people to assume that we have that capability.

under some strategic forces reduction treaty the trident missile mirv carriage was reduced to 4 from 12 iirc. the topol-M also carries a single warhead though it can easily carry more.

Just hope the second ATV is a bigger boat

I want the second ATV or at least the third ATV to use our indigenous thorium based reactors. If we can do this safely, then voila!!! even sky is not the limit looking and feeling from mariana trench [theorizing]. I am off the believers, if we aim for sky, we get at least the surface level success.

Why the sad face? Considering the complexity of an SSBN and the fact that we hadn't designed and built any type of submarine till now, starting off with a smaller boat was definitely a good idea.

SaiK, Dont dream unobtanium dreams. Think of other aspects like sub safety for the personnel with liquid sodium etc.

The problem of aiming for deep space is its so far out that all acheivements look not enough.

Those policy gurus who retire and write nonsense about how they planned to reach Aldeberan at warp speed makes the Moon/Mars project look like baby stuff.

The problem with India is too many dreamers and not enough realizers.

BTW to get economies of scale atleast three of kind have to be built. It comes from learning curve statistics and not any mumbo jumbo.

In 1980,the size of the Israeli bomb was "2ft. long and 22" in dia.In an ironic fact that should be publicised,the Israelis and Iranians actually collaborated together in developing a nuclear-tipped missile under "Operation Flower",when the Shah was in power.This $1B ultra-secret programme was hatched between the two def. mins,Ezer Weizmann and Hassan Toufanian in late 1977.The missile with a warhead of 750kg was to have had a range of 200+ km.The US was against giving the Israelis the Pershing,the Soviets anything equivalent too.Therefore the secret deal was hatched between the two seemingly antagonistic nations.

It was an oil-for-arms deal brokered by a Swiss entity,since Israel was facing an oil embargo from the Arab states.The assembly line was to be in Iran,Sirjin,with a 747 capable runway for flown in components from Israel.The Israeli project even then was to have had the ability of the weapon to be launched from subs! Israel had just recd. 3 Vickers built subs.This would've given the Israelis the capability to hit Libya,Tunis and Alexandria in Egypt.The money (oil) flowed into Israel from the Shah,$250m in '78 alone.However,the project suffered a major setback due to the fall of the Shah,but was reportedly completed by Israel.Israeli missiles are supposedly hidden in UG bunkers and on rail cars hidden in caves.With the controversial (Gunther Grass's diatribe against the sale) acquisition of the German built Dolphin subs ,even newer and more deadly warheads would've been developed and much longer ranged cruise missiles to carry the warheads.Terribly ironic at this time of tension with Iran to acknowledge that the Israeli nuclear deterrent was part funded by Iran itself!

I am mentioning this titbit from history to show how small an Israeli N-warhead is/was way back in '77.From these stats one can see how many MIRVs we can also carry atop each ICBM whose diameter we must assume is that of one silo on the ATV,which can carry 3 K-15 750km+ missiles.Enjoy working out that oneself!

So those are the Kalam's flowers when he alludes to Agony payloads!

Deep.

Ramana ji, for how long can ratehalli provide the necessary maals? totally agree on the safety aspects of u233.

This might not be strictly pens, could be something like these. Though unlike khan, we might have shoe-horned in a crane or two for loading the cigars (out of view of peekers above).

PS,in continuation of my earlier post,the size of the Israeli bomb became known because the Israeli's were allegedly being helped by American nuclear scientists who leaked the details! It is not known whether this was official US assistance to Israel,just as the Chinese gave Pak the bomb,delivery systems and their designs,or whether it was rogue Yanqui scientists moonlighting for Israel,as the state has enormous clout and influence in the US.,yet also spies on it too,take the Pollard case for ex.Until Vanunu exposed Israel's secret arsenal and facilities,the world had little inkling of its N-capability.

But both appear to have different sizes.

Going to have my first kid and it is a boy.... planning to name him "Arihant"... cheers.. !!

congrats and bravo! /ot

INS Arihant undergoes sea acceptance trials
SOURCE: INDIAN EXPRESS

Yipeee....
Where is the party icon when you need one!


Sea trials are done?

i think sea trials for arihant are likely to run 12-18 months before the green flag is waved.

Does this settle the 83MW thermal Vs Electrical power output debate here when Arihant was launched. Now its clear its the Electrical units.

I think the article doesnt categorically say that the trials have been completed, only that its still continuining from what I infer. Isnt this something we already know.

^^ There were earlier reports that the reactor hadnt even been fitted in and hadnt been powered and the Arihant was only running on the backup source. Atleast, we now know that it has moved beyond that

Are they talking of pre-trials before criticality or has the reactor now gone critical , last month or so there was news that reactor will go critical in few months time.

So, the PWR was developed with russian help? then why is BARC feeling:


Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this.

"So, the PWR was developed with russian help? then why is BARC feeling:
Quote:
The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant
Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this."

It could be editing problems once again in the Indian media. During a recent space launch, it was said that the satellite was the 'heaviest satellite launched by ISRO'. Whereas it was the heaviest satellite launched by the PSLV. Even worse editing took place a few years ago when it was claimed that cryogenic engine technology would 'go into the Agni missile programme'( say, what?).

It would be nice if it was spelled out clearly what exactly the Russians helped out with, and what the Indians did on their own. Wasn't the reactor itself Indian designed, but fitting it into the submarine was a task taken with Russian consultancy? Something like that.

well do you really think that they gonna cough out the detail of the Russian help not in a million years......
more over my knowledge serves consultation means not giving the whole technology of the reactor but advising BARC where to put what and where can you place the core and how big the core is and what power and what can the composition of the shield and how to make the reactor less detectable they just advice man and our guys should work based on that advice......