INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Mar 2014 06:28

reading the news on other site I got the impression that it was the Arihant. which suf fered the accident. thank god it didn't.

disha · Post by **disha** » 09 Mar 2014 06:47

Anurag wrote:Is this a model of the Arihant or the actual Arihant?

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/accid ... eststories

As pointed out, it is not Arihant. At the same time, the error is egregious and is *not* DDM. I can understand if a genuine DDM is made when the journo is trying to explain ring-laser-gyro or a very-low-frequency communication.

In this case, they not just violated the copyright but went on to claim otherwise.

We should stop quoting or at least limit quoting. Yes, that means not wasting your (and other's) precious moments behind NDTV.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 09 Mar 2014 06:50

Another pic relating to the Vizag accident

The accident is supposed to have taken place on the INS Aridaman dry-dock.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 09 Mar 2014 07:02

That's not the Arihant either. It's the USS Ohio, first of the Ohio class SSBNs. Same pic is visible here.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Mar 2014 09:42

Aridaman is under construction - advanced stage? How many boats are under constructions at present?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 09 Mar 2014 11:00

Narayana Rao wrote:Aridaman is under construction - advanced stage? How many boats are under constructions at present?

No source but quite possible that ATV 3 & 4 are already under construction at Vadodara. INS Aridaman is supposed to have out-fitting going on.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Mar 2014 18:23

Visakhapatnam mishap won’t affect submarine project: Defence Ministry
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/v ... epage=true

The Defence Ministry on Sunday said that the accident at the Ship Building Centre, Visakhapatnam in which a civilian worker was killed was “in no way related with any nuclear-related activity”.

“No defence personnel were involved in the accident. The accident is in no way [connected] with any nuclear-related activity. The submarines are safe and the accident does not adversely affect the project activities or the activities of Indian Navy or DRDO,” the Defence Ministry said in a statement a day after the accident.

It said that the accident occurred while L&T, an industrial partner, was undertaking preparatory activities of Hydro Pressure Test of a tank inside a building at the Ship Building Centre, Visakhapatnam. The test of the component was part of the standard industrial process being carried out by the industrial partner at the facility.

“Work related to the pressure system involved in accident has been suspended till the cause is established and mitigating measures are put in place. An inquiry has been ordered by the Department of Defence R&D to investigate the accident,” the statement said.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 09 Mar 2014 19:08

Klaus wrote:
Narayana Rao wrote:Aridaman is under construction - advanced stage? How many boats are under constructions at present?
No source but quite possible that ATV 3 & 4 are already under construction at Vadodara. INS Aridaman is supposed to have out-fitting going on.

The wikipedia post(with the reference) comments that there are 4 boats in this class and after that there will be a larger "Arihant follow on class".
What could the possible names for these Ari 3&4 be ? Arinash , Arijith ? Arindrajith ? or Arindam ?(Though the last may not be used as Aridhaman is alsready used)

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Mar 2014 01:01

Ari-mardan?

Ari-Nashak?

Ari-Ghatak?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Mar 2014 01:21

What could the possible names for these Ari 3&4 be

Please search previous pages (of which thread I do not know). There should be about 2-3 pages of proposed names.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Mar 2014 02:23

So the Vizag incident is a pressure tank lid falling upon three operators. Such operations are called "operations under suspended load" and usually safety precaution is to not have personnel directly under the slung load. So its not an accident with the vessel under construction or any such related thing. This is not of the same class/type as the Kolkata class vessel incident.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Mar 2014 02:31

Dhananjay wrote:Ari-mardan?

Ari-Nashak?

Ari-Ghatak?

Ari Shikari
Ari Mukta

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Mar 2014 07:07

It seems that Aridhaman is complete and work is going on for third submarine.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 10 Mar 2014 07:13

NRao wrote:
What could the possible names for these Ari 3&4 be
Please search previous pages (of which thread I do not know). There should be about 2-3 pages of proposed names.

Got it it is in this thread itself though on BRF search shows up pretty late !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2014 07:16

delay in arihant IOC and test firing is worrisome.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Mar 2014 07:51

Singha wrote:delay in arihant IOC and test firing is worrisome.

Actually they way I look at it , there is not real delay but the natural time taken in commisioning first of the new class of SSBN.......tests are exhaustive and time consuming to say the least.

For eg look at Russian Boeri class SSBN time lines ......rolled out April 2007 , reactor went critical Nov 2008 , Sea Trials started June 2009 , flag raised Jan 2013 ... thats around 6 years !

If we dont put out over optimistic schedule on press to look good ......the time takes is pretty much normal for a country that building the first N Sub.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Mar 2014 09:08

At least the SBC incident provides the official confirmation of follow on submarines without raising any hackles..

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 10 Mar 2014 09:23

@tsarkar:

Regarding Arihant as a multi-role sub: isn't 4 tubes for 3000 km+ range SLBMs grossly insufficient unless the SLBMs themselves are equipped with 6-8 MIRVs each ?

Is the SLBMs are single-warhead, 4 tubes each in three submarines will give just 12 warheads for the sub-based deterrent. Such a deterrent will look like a negligible entity.

Is the K-4 known to be MIRVed ?

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 10 Mar 2014 09:31

Post-accident, lens on nuclear submarine projects

NEW DELHI: Questions till now were being raised on the lack of proper quality controls, safety audits, accountability and monitoring during construction and refit of conventional warships and submarines after a series of accidents over the last several months. But now, even the construction of nuclear “platforms” is under the scanner.

Both the defence ministry and DRDO downplayed Saturday’s accident at the secretive and well-guarded Ship Building Centre (SBC) at Visakhapatnam, where India’s first three nuclear submarines are being built. “The accident is in no way related to any nuclear-related activity. The submarines are safe and the accident does not adversely affect the project,” the defence ministry said on Sunday.

That may well be the case but even minor accidents connected to the nuclear arena can raise the spectre of nightmarish scenarios. “The level of quality checks and technical oversight has to be much, much higher and stringent for nuclear platforms. A proper inquiry and safety audit is needed in the matter,” said an officer.

A civilian worker of Larsen & Toubro was killed and another two injured when the hatch of a “tank” to be installed in INS Aridhaman — the follow-on submarine to the first one, INS Arihant — blew off during its “hydro-pressure testing” in building number 5 of the SBC on Saturday. “It would have been catastrophic if it had happened inside the submarine,” said the officer.
The accident comes at a time when the “hull and full form” of INS Aridhaman, designated ‘S-3′ at present, is ready for “launch” into water. It will also be powered by a miniature 83 mw pressurized light-water reactor like the 6,000-tonne INS Arihant (S-2), whose enriched uranium-fuelled reactor went “critical” on August 10 last year.

The first PWR reactor designed for indigenous nuclear submarines, dubbed S-1, is located at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre at Kalpakkam as a prototype. A third submarine called S-4 is also being built under the secret advanced technology vessel (ATV) project underway with an initial sanction of around Rs 30,000 crore at the SBC.

The long delay in the sea-acceptance trials of INS Arihant, which was “launched” in July 2009, has itself raised eyebrows. The explanation is that since the submarine’s reactor went critical last August, its self-sustained power was being gradually raised by 5 per cent to 10 per cent at a time in a deliberate and calibrated manner.

“The pipelines are extensively pressure-tested every time … the leaks detected in the secondary and tertiary systems of the power plant are then rectified. INS Arihant will head for sea trials, which will take around 18 months and include firing of its K-15 ballistic missiles (750km range), only after its reactor achieves 100 per cent power,” said another officer.

INS Arihant’s fully operational status is critical to completing India’s long-standing quest for a nuclear weapons triad – the capability to fire nukes from land, air and underwater. But it will become a reality only sometime next year. Till then, India will have to make do with the land-based Agni missiles and fighters jury-rigged to carry nuclear weapons for its deterrence posture.

First mention of S-4 sub , & news on INS Aridhaman being ready for launch

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Mar 2014 10:49

@Ramdas

No it isnt. The present scheme of 16 SLBMs in the same boat by UK, France & China is putting all eggs in the same basket.

4 Vanguard x 16 missiles = 64. 3 x Arihant + up to 12 x follow on (assuming they too carry 4 tubes) = 15 x 4 = 60 which compares favourably.

Also any submarine launching missiles underwater radiates significant noise that can be detected by ASW forces. It is for this reason that US Navy has retired Sub Harpoon and fires Tomahawk from safe havens.

In light of vulnerability during firing missiles, dividing missiles among subs is a very prudent exercise. Also our missiles are not as long ranged as Trident, so will need to approach closer to the enemy.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 10 Mar 2014 11:10

@tsarkar:

But can't 16 SLBMs be launched in a few mins ? I read about operation begemot-2 where 16SLBMs were launched from a Delta IV in less than 4 mins. ASW forces can't be everywhere, right ? 4 mins is too short a time to neutralize a submarine if ASW forces are several 100 mms away.

Now, we get 60 tubes as per your calculation with 15 subs. First of all, this will take 15 years at the very least. At the end of it, we have a deterrent with just 60 warheads unless the SLBMs are MIRVed. The quantity is puny without MIRVing. This sort of minimality would carry no credibility with PRC.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Mar 2014 12:36

It seems that Arihant was started and completed in 18 years, Aridhaman in 12 years and open source reports have been appearing regarding third nuclear submarine atleast for 4-5 years now, so it should also be in fairly advanced stage of completion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Mar 2014 12:43

The MOD is now blaming L&T for the accident.

Not too long ago,I posted xcpts. from a recent AWST issue on India's strategic missiles.Agni 6 to be specific.What appears to be on the cards is a larger missile for our SSBNs which will have MIRVs.So even if there are only 4 missiles on the first ATV,i could have upto 6 MIRVs.WE aren't sure whether the 2 under construction are of similar size,but even if so,they would together have the capability of delivering around 50-60 N-warheads,sufficient to deter China.Future SSBNs would be larger and have 12-16 silos for longer ranged more capable missiles. If we acquire another 2 Akulas as strategists are recommending,they could also be equipped with our LRCM Nirbhay which could also be tipped with N-warheads.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 10 Mar 2014 15:16

Philip wrote:The MOD is now blaming L&T for the accident.

Not too long ago,I posted xcpts. from a recent AWST issue on India's strategic missiles.Agni 6 to be specific.What appears to be on the cards is a larger missile for our SSBNs which will have MIRVs.So even if there are only 4 missiles on the first ATV,i could have upto 6 MIRVs.WE aren't sure whether the 2 under construction are of similar size,but even if so,they would together have the capability of delivering around 50-60 N-warheads,sufficient to deter China.Future SSBNs would be larger and have 12-16 silos for longer ranged more capable missiles. If we acquire another 2 Akulas as strategists are recommending,they could also be equipped with our LRCM Nirbhay which could also be tipped with N-warheads.

Philip, regarding the bolded part. On what basis are you claiming that Russia will allow India to carry nukes in leased Akula? If anything instances (like limiting Brahmos range as per MTCR restrictions) only prove that Russia applies International treaties seriously when dealing with other nations (no matter how close).

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 10 Mar 2014 16:00

KiranM wrote: Philip, regarding the bolded part. On what basis are you claiming that Russia will allow India to carry nukes in leased Akula? If anything instances (like limiting Brahmos range as per MTCR restrictions) only prove that Russia applies International treaties seriously when dealing with other nations (no matter how close).

Thats what Russia tells the world but I dont think there is any actual range limitation on the Brahmos. Russia went out of its way to "lease" the subs to us when outright selling was prohibited. Cryogenic engines were "sold" to us when US was pressing some round objects belonging to the bear. Russia and Israel, when it has mattered most to India, have come to its rescue showing a hand part gravitating around the center to that old promoter of democracy and "freedom".

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Mar 2014 16:48

tsarkar wrote: 4 Vanguard x 16 missiles = 64. 3 x Arihant + up to 12 x follow on (assuming they too carry 4 tubes) = 15 x 4 = 60 which compares favourably.

But wouldn't it be even more expensive then french and uk navies to have 15 subs for firing 60 missiles against the enemies?

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 10 Mar 2014 16:49

Yogi_G wrote:
KiranM wrote: Philip, regarding the bolded part. On what basis are you claiming that Russia will allow India to carry nukes in leased Akula? If anything instances (like limiting Brahmos range as per MTCR restrictions) only prove that Russia applies International treaties seriously when dealing with other nations (no matter how close).
Thats what Russia tells the world but I dont think there is any actual range limitation on the Brahmos. Russia went out of its way to "lease" the subs to us when outright selling was prohibited. Cryogenic engines were "sold" to us when US was pressing some round objects belonging to the bear. Russia and Israel, when it has mattered most to India, have come to its rescue showing a hand part gravitating around the center to that old promoter of democracy and "freedom".

Yogi ji, there is no credible information about Brahmos range being in excess of 300km. So lets leave it at that. I am not denying Russia/ FSU has not been there for India when it mattered most. They have supported us, many times even bending the clauses governing the treaties they are party to (hence Russia leasing Chakra 1 and 2). But they have not outright flouted them (hance Chakra 1 was returned at the end of lease). So we cannot arbitraily claim that leased Akulas will carry Indian nukes. They may escort and protect Indian vessels which carry nukes.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 10 Mar 2014 16:58

KiranM wrote:Yogi ji, there is no credible information about Brahmos range being in excess of 300km. So lets leave it at that. I am not denying Russia/ FSU has not been there for India when it mattered most. They have supported us, many times even bending the clauses governing the treaties they are party to (hence Russia leasing Chakra 1 and 2). But they have not outright flouted them (hance Chakra 1 was returned at the end of lease). So we cannot arbitraily claim that leased Akulas will carry Indian nukes. They may escort and protect Indian vessels which carry nukes.

Kiran ji, ijjaktly, this is more of a "what you think versus what I think" point with no credible info to nail the point. There have been instances of Russians winking because they were in difficulty and helping India overcome something. I am not saying that our nukes will be in the Akulas but lets not rule that out. When $hit hits the fan the Indian gov can come up with anything and Russia will comply in the greater interests.

Will · Post by **Will** » 10 Mar 2014 18:59

Maybe the reason that the RFP for the P75I has not been issued is cause the IN is looking to move towards a sub attack fleet of SSN's. Makes more sense than going in for an ocean going conventional submarine fleet. For littoral warfare just buy more scorpenes.

nash · Post by **nash** » 10 Mar 2014 19:07

Will wrote:Maybe the reason that the RFP for the P75I has not been issued is cause the IN is looking to move towards a sub attack fleet of SSN's. Makes more sense than going in for an ocean going conventional submarine fleet. For littoral warfare just buy more scorpenes.

exactly, 50000+ crore to buy 6 SSK. IMO it would lot better and sensible to order extra 3 scorpene with AIP and go for SSN fully instead of P-75I SSK.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Mar 2014 20:47

Kiran,the Akulas are intended for the SSGN role,not the strat. SSBN role that the ATVs being built at home are for.The LR ICBM with MIRV warheads is supposedly under development.Here too,one must remember that without the Russian assistance,it would not be possible.Akulas with LRCMs like Nirbhay and BMos,will be tasked to take out specific targets on land,apart from anti-shp /carrier roles.China is reportedly building 4 new conventional carriers,two underway which will be commissioned before 2020,the last 2 even larger than the Varyag class with 4 cats.The carriers are primarily meant for the Pacific and Indo-China Sea to challenge the USN's carriers.Though they will show the flag in the IOR,ingress into it is fraught with danger due to the chokepoints and the preferred method of dealing with the IN is to saturate the IOR ,Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea operating out of Gwadar with subs.

The Scorpenes are simply too expensive to build any more.They are approaching the cost of an Akula SSGN,which is 4 times larger and carries 40 weapons compared with just 18 for the SSK.The second Akula being contemplated is reported to also feature VLS silos akin to those on the Yasen class,which can accommodate diff, types of missiles including BMos.The best interim bet is to acquire Amurs with the under development BMos-M which can be fired from std. sized TTs.These subs supposedly cost half that of a Scorpene and are also touted as cheaper than a Kilo and far more silent with better sonars,automation,etc.An older design featured silos for 8 BMos.A definitive India-specific conventional AIP design could be later developed after using both the Scorpene and Amurs, to be built from 2025 onwards,while the current indigenous emphasis and effort should be on completing the 5 SSBNs and also SSGNs based upon the basic ATV design.Once our indigenous SSGNs are operational,they could also carry nuke-tipped LRCMs,etc. if required.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 16 Mar 2014 13:35

India's Sub-Building Facility May Suffer From Loose Admin Controls, Excessive Outsourcing
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... utsourcing

NEW DELHI — Even as Indian authorities are saying that the March accident at the building facility of the country’s homemade nuclear submarines was “an industrial accident,” sources in the Indian Navy said lack of a well spelled-out administrative command between different wings at Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO’s) Ship Building Centre (SBC) at Visakhapatnam is leading to poor monitoring of a variety of jobs, the bulk of which are being contracted and later subcontracted.

An employee of domestic, private-sector Larsen & Toubro (L&T) was killed when the lid of a pressure tank to be installed on a follow-up nuclear submarine of the Arihant class, code named S-3, blew off at the facility.

A statement by the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) later said, “The accident is in no way related with any nuclear-related activity. The submarines are safe, and the accident does not adversely affect the project activities or the activities of Indian Navy or Defense Research and Development Organization.”

DRDO chief Avinash Chander said mishap was an “industrial accident.” Talking to reporters March 10, he said, “What happened at Visakhapatnam has nothing to do with the Navy. It was an industrial accident.” Other officials at DRDO would not elaborate on what the DRDO chief meant by “industrial accident”.

The Indian Navy source, however, said, “Had a similar accident occurred at any private-sector shipbuilding facility, then the blame would have been put squarely on the private company, implying DRDO should own up to responsibility for the accident, as it involves the nuclear submarine.”

When asked about the administrative setup at the facility, a DRDO official said administrative control of DRDO lies with the Department of Research (R&D) in the Ministry of Defense which is headed by Chander, the scientific advisor to the defense minister who is also the director general of DRDO.

A MoD official denied any confusion in the administrative set up of the DRDO submarine building facility, adding that the nuclear submarine building project named Akansha is being executed by DRDO. However, a MoD source said the prime minister’s office is in charge of the submarine building project.

Since the indigenous nuclear submarine building project, earlier called the Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV), is labeled secretive, no details are officially known on the definite administrative structure of the project.

DRDO’s nuclear submarine shipbuilding facility at Visakhapatnam was set up 10 years ago and has about 500 DRDO personnel, while the Indian Navy has another 500 personnel there, whose composition is not known.

While the Indian Navy is in charge of operational matters, DRDO is the integrator of the systems and sub-systems acquired from private sources, and its laboratories.

L&T built the hull at the facility, and several other private companies are involved in the project including Tata Power, Walchandnagar Industries and KSB Pumps.

Whatever the explanation given now by authorities to lay blame for the accident, analysts and Indian Navy officials are angry as the accident occurred as part of a string of incidents involving the Indian Navy. Last month, an officer of the Indian Navy died in the Russian-made submarine Sindhuratna, which led to the resignation of Indian Navy Chief Adm. D.K. Joshi. Last year, another Russian-made kilo-class submarine, Sindhurakshak, which had recently been upgraded, was lost in a fire, killing its 18 crewman.

“The approach at defense production facilities can be called careless, and it is time private-sector companies are directly involved in production of weapons and equipment so that the monopoly of state-owned companies which is bogged with bureaucracy is broken,” said defense analyst Nitin Mehta.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Mar 2014 14:17

What a bunch of losers ... I don´t understand all these junk reports...

Would such people prefer to have major accidents (with loss of ship along with whole crew), when leading ship or submarines are on active duty or during war then during tests. While tests are done in a control way that is why these is minimum lose of life. (Every loss of life is really bad and too heavy for the colleagues and friends)

Now imagine, what will happen if these things are not tested and fixed now but happen during active duty?

I don´t understand these vague claims of many navy officers are angry:
- Why there concerns can´t addressed within Navy?
- Why can´t they put their questions or fears to their superiors?
- What these officers will get by telling them to press?
- And more important what good journalist is doing by giving general statement without giving providing proper reference to the source?

I smell, few are not happy with losing vodka bottle to gori chamdi because of local equipments.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 12 May 2014 07:24

Some pic of INS Arihant has surfaced (someone said its the 2nd sub arindman not arihant in another forum)

http://i.imgur.com/upQ6egC.jpg?1?5644

a hump is now clearly visible which was not in the earlier pics

posted in naval thread also

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2014 10:40

looks genuine...about the size and look of a 688 class boat.

but if IBNlive is given such footage, why not a proper press release? in broad daylight I am sure various imint sats on daily passes must have long picked it up.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2014 10:45

its looks like a screengrab pulled from a DRDO PR video hence the bad resolution.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 May 2014 10:53

Mango man question - Can Arihant class used as a pure SSN rather than a mini boomer as it is being made out to be. I mean escorting IAC and lonely petrols duering was time to attack enemy shipping etc work? Suppose we start making a couple of Arihant class boats a year instead of SSKs of various kinds will it not be great?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2014 11:19

It can be used as a lethal ssgn packing some 12 brahmos and 25-30 heavy torpedoes or nirbhay mix.
Infact the genesis of the design seems to be some ssgn design in rubin that was not productionized.
Will have less top speed than 688 but thats about the only drawback.

mody · Post by **mody** » 12 May 2014 12:18

The main difference between SSN's and SSBN's is the speed and noise levels. SSBN's have lower speed and put a much greater premium on lower noise levels.

For SSN's, they need to have speed in excess of 30 knots at the very least, to outrun surface vessels, after firing its weapons. During these high speed operations, the noise levels of the sub are bound to much higher then that for a typical SSBN.

Currently the reactor that we have for the arihant, is too small for SSN/SSGN kind of roles. We need to have atleast a 120 MW reactor, for SSN/SSGN role for a 6-7 Ton sub.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 12 May 2014 12:24

Singha wrote:It can be used as a lethal ssgn packing some 12 brahmos and 25-30 heavy torpedoes or nirbhay mix.
Infact the genesis of the design seems to be some ssgn design in rubin that was not productionized.
Will have less top speed than 688 but thats about the only drawback.

Perhaps that was the plan all along. Get experience with a smaller SSBN, then convert them all to SSGN type role if a larger sized SSBN is needed and made. No matter what tasrkar says, 4 SLBMs is limiting and at least 8 - 12 looks to be good.

Unless IN does NOT plan on 24x7 deterrent patrols.

In fact I'm not a fan of the Arihant being used for strategic roles *at all*. Best to use it for different SSN roles, fleet escort, land attack, hunter killer, etc. Use many road mobile ICBMs spread far and wide in the Indian landmass and upgrade lots of roads and miniaturize the ICBMs to go anywhere.