Bharat Rakshak

^^ Good article.

Again, the 2 Akula subs reference:

Wonder what is the status of the other sub and is it coming to us too?

Supposedly the Chakra:



Check out 1.00 minute and then around 1:10 min - what is that missile?

The submarine shown there initially with Indian Naval Officer is the decommisioning of Vagli which is foxtrot class , the internal of the submarine shown some time later is Virginia class SSN including the loading of torpedoes and Ops room.

Some LA class SSN footage is added for effects as it surfaces.

The missile fired from Torpedo tube is Tomahawk Cruise missile fired from US submarine.

The Rusian submarine shown later is the Typhoon Class SSBN.

So bottom line is Nerpa is not shown in the video

Lol, indeed. Wow. Spares problem?

If this article is to be believed then, Chakra-II will not come with any Russian personnel on board. That is good. We need to operate this on our own. But the utility of this sub in training Indian naval personnel is also questionable. Naval personnel on Arihant and its sister ships can carry out mock drills on firing of K series of missiles. Training naval personnel w.r.t nuclear reactors can be easily done on shore based facilities.

Chakra-II is a SSN. It is meant to attack targets like USN CBG or other SSBN and possibly SSGN. After 1971 - USS Enterprise fiasco and non withstanding all the hype about India-US strategic alignment, it would make sense for IN to have assets which might make any eventual repeat of 1971 USS Enterprise saga redundant.

But look at certain facts. This lease is for 10 years. This is an attack submarine not a deterrence based boomer. Unless India plans to build SSBN first and later on SSN, then only does it operationally sense for India to go for Nerpa. It has been insinuated that India plans on building 5 nuclear submarines. Assuming that it will take 2-3 years for us to build a nuclear submarine, we might be in a position of having SSBN in our inventory but not SSN by the time this decade runs out. But throw in nerpa and the calculus changes.

Technologically I understand nerpa gives us access to some cutting edge nuclear submarine tech. But from a purely operational perspective, considering that the lease is for a decade, this submarine says something else entirely. And if it is to be believed that this is only first of the two or three SSN which will join IN, then it does appear that IN is planning something different and training is not the first purpose of this SSN, i.e. nerpa/Chakra-II.

It is rather obvious that training is not the sole purpose of this boat. Also, lets not forget a 10 year lease could be renewed. I think it is 10 years because by then India should be able to build its own SSNs.

CM,quite right.Who would lease a nuclear sub for 10 years just for "training"! It adds a totally new dimension to the reach and striking power of the IN.In fact,after operating the Chakra for a short period,the enormous options that its unlimited (90-100 days on patrol) range allows when compared with a diesel boat,will in my opinion,change the IN's outlook as to its future acquisitions,with a larger % of N-boats planned for in the future.One Akula carries twice the weapon load of a diesel sub,like a Scorpene and actually has more devastating missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes in its arsenal.It also has many more anti-sub,anti-torp. decoys,of both soft and hard kill syatems.The ability to sprint to the area of crisis in half the time as a conventional sub too is no better illustrated than the speedy deployment of a RN nuclear sub to the Falklands right now.

Th faster we build and source our SSBNs and SSGNs,the stronger will the IN and nation be in deterring the enemy.

^ I would not be surprised, contingent to Arihant's performance during sea trials of course, if the tender for the second line SSKs gets shafted, and monies are instead invested in just more Scorpenes and the quick development/deployment of a home built SSN. I think a Arihant sized SSK would be very, very nice.

Few indian Le Terribles will do.

CM,there was a little pic of a cutaway section of an Indian SSGN in an old issue of the F mag,during the year that the ATV was launched.It has been misplaced,but the design resembled the ATV very much.There is probably a plan to use the ATV's basic design ,which incidentally can also serve well as an SSGN using the smaller K-15 missile,for a dedicated attack sub.Perhaps the sub might need a more powerful reactor and other elements for the use of special forces.

The new AIP under development using diesel to get Hydrogen is quite promising , considering you dont have to carry hydrogen on board plus you dont need specialised shore based infra for it.

The submerged endurance of ~ 25 days with new AIP is also quite good , considering the Kilos without AIP cannot do a submerged endurance of more than 8 days , so the AIP increases under water endurance by atleast 3 times.

I do not know if the 15-20 days submerged endurance of foreign AIP is true or is a marketing talk by Rubin will find out more, but from what i had read in Naval Forces for German Fuel Cell AIP using Hydrogen as fuel it needs to be maintained at a purity rate of atleast 99 % and the shore infra to maintain such a purity level is not only expensive but also difficult to maintain hence limited at few places.

german SSKs probably operate from only 1 or 2 TFTA bases and slink around in the baltic sea only, with the occasional foray into the north sea. what works great there and within their cost structure and readiness levels may not work for us. we need to operate at 5X the distance, from a range of bases against very hostile array of foes.

Austin, there was some talks from Navantia to equip the second batch of S-80 sub with an AIP of greater endurance than the first batch.

German U-boats with AIP have conducted ops in the Atlanntic validating their AIP system.The SoKos are also building under licence the same,and Indonesia is likely to buy the same built by SoKo.A few years ago I gave a comparison of MESMA and the German Fuel Cel AIP systems.AS Austin has said,storage of fuel requires serious infrastructure on shore.The Russians were also reportedly experimenting with new batteries which had twice the power of conventional sub battereies,which if perfected would require no AIP system at all.

The report about the likely win by the Russian sub (AMUR) now looks dated with the news of the dumping of a non-AIP Amur/Lada series by Russia.I think that this decision -for the second line will be delayed until AIP systems offered can be properly evaluated.

And depends on whether the DRDO AIP is line to be integrated with the last 2 Scorpenes.

Yes I read the same , most likely it would be French MESMA ......S-80 is a bigger scorpene so if selected it will have maximum logistics commonality with Indian Scorpene.....I see S-80 as strong contender.

Austin, logistically a limited tender between S-90(?) and Super Scorpene is much preferable than bringing the Germans and Russian on board. If Navy wants an ocean going conventional sub then the next gen AIPs will come handy. Otherwise IMHO the endurance provided by the current breed of any western AIPs are adequate.

Yes,but "what about the arrows?" ,as a former naval pal of mine always says. The western subs lack missile punch that the Russians subs possess.Klub and Brahmos,and Shkval rocket torpedoes,which the IN want.There is no way that the Russians will allow their missiles to be integrated with a western sub,and both Scorpene and the U-boats are too small.I also do not see any major problem in the IN operating more than one ,even two types of conventional AIP subs,if the numbers are large.For decades we were operating Kilos,U-209s and legacy Foxtrots too,keeping them serviceable far beyond their designed lifespan.

As far as the nuclear boats are concerned,they both-ATV and Akula appear to possess some major common eqpt.12 nuclear boats and between 18-24 conventional AIP subs should be adequate to counter the PLAN and PN combined.The world leaders in sub design are the US and Russia.While US sub tech is unavailable to us,it would be folly to ignore the options available to us from Russia,even for conventional /AIP subs.

Philip, sub launched Nirbhay is much more cost effective than Brahmos. Nirbhay will definitely our range Brahmos which is handicapped by MTCR limitation. According to Commander of the Fleet Vladimir Vysotsky the Lada/Amur class is an underpowered boat with poor ergonomics. The Greeks and South Koreans are unhappy with their U-214s. HDW solved all the problems with the South Koreans but the boats are still noisier than the promised specs.


Added Later :

So it leaves only DCN and Navantia. While DCN with Thales can provide the complete solution Navantia can help us to increase indigenous component on the subs. We can install our own IPMS instead of SUBSTICS. That also solves the Brahmos dilemma.

what about the japanese with their Soryu design and licensed swedish stirling aip? unlike the S80, the Soryu has the size and capacity for a proper trans oceanic SSK. japan is a superpower in shipbuilding, machinery, electronics compared to the spanish who punch above their real weight due to deep tie ins with trans EU defence cos of the EADS/thales/BAE mould.

Even if they clear it for export the cost will be sky high.

well the S90-mki you are proposing wont be cheap either looking at the cost of the much smaller scorpene!

we should not discount the Soryu without talking seriously to the japanese govt. other than Khan, Japan is one nation that prepares very seriously for the anti-shipping and ASW role. most of their navy and AF strike power is into these two roles.

Singha, its true that the S-90 mki I am proposing will not come cheap but it will have more indigenous content. We have integrated Brahmos on the Shivalik class and to be commissioned Kolkata class. I am hoping with our own IPMS fitting Brahmos/Nirbhay on a western sub will be possible. Also the Spanish S-80A requires half the crew needed to man the Soryu class. Commonality with the Scorpene will help to reduce maintenance cost.

How reliable the Japanese will be is the biggest question. But recent participating in the amphi plane deal and the Rupee-Yen swap is encouraging.

Sneh,there is simply no way that the Russians will allow sub-launched Brahmos to be integrated onto a western sub,as it would destroy the export advantage of buying a Russian sub with such an advanced missile that is not available with the west.Russia is competing strongly against western sub manufacturers especially in the developing world. Secondly,Brahmos is a supersonic Mach 2.5-3 missile unlike the subsonic Nirbhay.Brahmos is primarily an anti-ship missile with secondary land attack roles,while Nirbhay is a land attack LR cruise missile that might even carry a nuclear warhead.Nirbhay appears to be our version of the Tomahawk ,which the US has used to devastating effect in both GWars and the Libyan campaign.The IN's future subs will probably carry both missiles and maybe even Klub,the anti-sub version too.lastly,the Scorpene and U-212/214s are just too small to carry Brahmos,which even in a Russian sub,would require an extra section/pug for the missile silos and more powerful engines.

The IN needs blue-water ops conventional AIP subs apart from its nuclear subs because of the cost factor and the need also for numbers to patrol the various areas of the IOR and beyond that are critical to the IN's defence of the IOR from external intrusive maritime forces.In the shallow murky waters of the littorals,the conventional AIP sub has a silent advantage over larger subs,including nuclear boats.However,these subs have to have a weapon load that apart from being able to deal with enemy subs ,contains long range weaponry that can attack an adversary's task force a few hundred NMs away,before/while it is transiting through the Malacca Straits or in the Indo-China Sea.Only a new design of an AIP sub close to the size/displacement of a Kilo,around 3000t+,would be large enough to carry the variety of weaponry and have the endurance to transit,stay on patrol for a useful period of time,before returning to base.The smaller Scorpenes and U-boats are better suited to littoral warfare against the PN's underwater assets.

Japanese subs are an unknown quantity and may have some US tech on them that would make them unsuitable for the IN given the possibility of sanctions.Let's also remember that we have yet to experience the Scorpenes operating in Indian waters,according to the IN's tactics and strategy. A piece in a paper,ruminating about Britain's role as a reliable defence supplier in comparison to the French,noted how Sea Harrier spares were held up and Sea Kings were grounded after P-2 ,as the SKs in particular had US made components.Secondly,no other nation other than Japan operates these subs making them a sole supplier of spares and components.The issue which has become clear reg. our second line ,is that MDL is sabotaging in my opinion a quick decision on the subs,because it does not want any other private yard-unless it has a tie up with MDL,to benefit (L&T in particular) ,delaying the decision until it has finished in large measure the construction of the 6 Scorpenes for the IN.It can then whine to the MOD and say "please give this poor PSU the contract for subs so that the workforce will be kept employed ",and lobby politically for the same . In actual fact,thanks to the delays in the Scorpenes,MDL should be punished for any shortcomings and the second line given to a private yard to ensure a keen competition which will give the IN a more cost-effective way off replenishing and adding to the sub fleet.It is also a wise decision NOT to put all our sub-building eggs into one basket (MDL) ,which is vulnerable to attack by Paki PGMs.L&Ts new port/shipbuilding facility north of Madras was I think the planned facility for building warships and subs,out of range of the Paki navy in the west.When you realise that 25-1/3rd of the sub fleet will always be under repair,refit or modernisation,the need for more than one yard which is able to handle sub construction and support becomes evident.

The 2nd line of submarine will eventually boil down to what the IN wants to see the entire submarine program evolve in the next 30 years , wheather it wants to continue with operating East and West submarine design in its fleet for reason they best know considering they operate Kilo and U-209 and would be best position to judge on the operational/cost advantage verus logistics/cost.

If IN decides to pursue this approach for the next 30 years then the Amur design will end up being the most logical choice.

How ever if IN decides there is little operational/tactical advantage over operating a new type but sees logistics and standardisation of sub fleet as more critical then DCN proposal or S-80 will win.

Philip, I completely agree with you. But the negative comments by Vladimir Vysotsky seems to indicate that the Russians will not mind getting rejected for the second line. He has given enough ammunition to the other competitors and media to scuttle the deal.

Before reading his interview I was really hopeful the we will produce Amurs with 10 VL tubes.

the Amur/Lada design is substantially smaller than even a Kilo. it was never going to scale up to the size needed for a sub carrying VL tubes, AIP and a substantial loadout of torpedo room weapons. its not even realistic to consider this sub for the purpose regardless of cost or politics, it has to be technically viable first.

the min size needed is a Collins++ or Soryu. or even a upsized modernized Kilo++ with a 10m stretch. the S90 is also possible but so far nobody has designed it yet let alone offer it to us. we can discount Collins as a failed design.

the only game in town that we know is in the water and more building is Soryu. sad but true. perhaps Rubin could be interested in a Kilo++ but will turn around sell it to the chinese at the drop of a hat!

euros operate in shallow littoral waters and leave the deep ocean hunting to the big boys (SSNs). they have no incentive to design or operate large subs. they can design a S90 but nobody will really know how good or bad until the first one is in service...and we know the Collins story and how the germans kept the good one (U212) for themselves and sold a speced up U214 to greece/Soko et al which faced numerous issues.

only the JMSDF operates in deep water, the areas around japan, philippines and siberia are pretty deep ocean...

it makes me think a scaled down Arihant design (4500t submerged, 3000t empty with massive reserve buoyancy) with a conventional diesel plant (pielstick/mtu/russian) and AIP is the way forward. it can have 6-8 vl tubes for nirbhay sized weapons in arihants place and carry much the same interior fitment. need not pack a huge speed but focus on being quiet, long range, long endurance and heavy strike power.

I think the impression that Amur is smaller then Kilo becomes more prominent because Amur is a single hull submarine while Kilo is a double hull submarine , hence appears bulky and larger.

As far as endurance goes both Kilo and Amur submarine has similar endurance , although with AIP the submerged endurance is greater then 25 days for Amur , for kilo its 8 days. Plus i read the new Li ion battery will improve its submerged endurance.

I doubt any design be Amur or Western one can add both AIP and VLS Brahmos ( 8 cell ) without degrading its speed and other performance , hence the VLS bramos on conventional submarine is a non-starter unless they are willing to compromise on some key submarine parameter. Brahmos is a very heavy missile and with sub launched it may end up being slightly heavier then the army variant.

Here is Rubin has to say on Amur 1650 which actually surfaced displacement of 1765T
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/nav ... amur_1650/

Brochure http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/fileadmin/edito ... 50_eng.pdf

There was some sub s-100 that was supposed to be designed for Indian Navy by Rubin and Navnita. Is this the S 90 you guys are talking about?

Why bother with a second line of SSKs. Littoralish missions can be well taken care of by Scorpene esp. with AIP. I'd think if they want LACM capability, either a full SSGN or smallish SSN based on Arihant will do beautifully. Time to think big league. Diesels are not going to help if the dragon has to be tamed in its backyard.

we do not have a abundance of enriched uranium for military uses. what we have needs to be carefully managed for n-weapons and the n-subs. n-subs tend to be very costly vs SSK unless one launches a long line of std design like 688 or Akula.

S-1000 was a rubin italian(fincantieri) project that did not progress. it was a good idea but too small
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1000_submarine_class

I agree with Austin, brahmos is a overkill and overweight....and a SSK cannot carry enough to make a diff in land attack role. I think we should not dream of big VL arrays in SSK and instead focus on a new single hull Kilo++ sized design derived from the Arihant, say around 20-25 weapons in torpedo room incl nirbhay, harpoon and klub.
if needed get the french to develop the MM-40 200km land attack exocet into a SM-40 model.

requirement being a long transit range at snorkel depth, good AIP for say a 10 day submerged low speed attack mission in south china sea and then enough legs to escape submerged/snorkel back to friendly waters.

Russia faced major nuclear submarine disaster in 2011-report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/russia-submarine-nuclear-idUSL5E8DE7U920120214



I hope our dock infrastructure is up to and beyond par for the Chakra-II.

If it is littoral defense, even AIP is not mandatory.
I think AIP plus Brahmos is intended to stalk and assault the Incoming enemy fleets rather then Land attack roles.

Except the USN CBG there are no possible threat that may require Brahmos rather than Nirbhay.



++1

Just construct some more Scorpene and concentrate on nuke boats. ATV was beyond the horizon when the decision to make 24 conventional sub was made.

This article (in Russian, unfortunately) published in 2006, was prepared by Rubin design bureau and St.Peterburg Institute of Technology. It describes the concept and technicalities of the onboard reforming of diesel fuel into hydrogen for further in fuel cells of AIP. The drawings and graphs are quite self-explanatory.

http://isjaee.hydrogen.ru/pdf/11_06_Chentsov.pdf