Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Dec 2015 03:17

It is really surprising to see the lengths some posters are going to prove that the Arihant is not Indian. The post above would have one believe that the Arihant is actually "helped far more" i.e. almost Russian. If it is almost Russian, why then is taking so long to complete testing. Why couldn't it be operationalized in one year from launch? Why was the reactor turned on so late (August 2013 per some reports)? Why was there so much delay in Harbor Acceptance trials? Why were sea trials delayed? If this is a proven Russian design, why didn't it enter service a couple of years ago? Why did we need an identical reactor on land?

Why is it so hard for some Indians to believe that India can actually produce world class weapons? That is the crux of the matter. Why do Indians need masters?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 03 Dec 2015 05:06

Vivek K wrote:It is really surprising to see the lengths some posters are going to prove that the Arihant is not Indian. The post above would have one believe that the Arihant is actually "helped far more" i.e. almost Russian. If it is almost Russian, why then is taking so long to complete testing. Why couldn't it be operationalized in one year from launch? Why was the reactor turned on so late (August 2013 per some reports)? Why was there so much delay in Harbor Acceptance trials? Why were sea trials delayed? If this is a proven Russian design, why didn't it enter service a couple of years ago? Why did we need an identical reactor on land?

Why is it so hard for some Indians to believe that India can actually produce world class weapons? That is the crux of the matter. Why do Indians need masters?

Please no more of this.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 03 Dec 2015 05:07

Karan M, tsarkar, please do everybody a favour and put each other on your respective ignore list. And no more fighting and derailing this thread - doesn't matter who started it. Of all folks on this board, you guys should know better.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2015 05:10

pragnya wrote:am not sure but this animated video has quite good details of armaments...

they show different VLS config at 1:00 and 1:40ish.

? photoshop praablam or all naarmal nirmal?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 Dec 2015 05:57

Raja Bose: Are you banning the posting of any articles and views to understand the role of Russians in the build of the Arihant or just the imagined views of some on why posters post and what do they allegedly think about India and Indians? For a highly classified program like ATV/Arihant, there is bound to be controversy on its trials and triumphs, starting from the 70's. If posters can post and respond with their emotions in check, let the facts and views on them come out?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 03 Dec 2015 06:59

ShauryaT wrote:Raja Bose: Are you banning the posting of any articles and views to understand the role of Russians in the build of the Arihant or just the imagined views of some on why posters post and what do they allegedly think about India and Indians? For a highly classified program like ATV/Arihant, there is bound to be controversy on its trials and triumphs, starting from the 70's. If posters can post and respond with their emotions in check, let the facts and views on them come out?

I am warning against posting stuff which doesn't contribute anything to the thread in terms of content or knowledge and just fans the flames. Vivek K's post is one of them. Stick to facts and views rather than rhetoric and strawman arguments, everything will be just fine.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Dec 2015 11:02

Saik,the Arihant does not have "X" type tailplanes.That fig is speculative.The authentic pics of the sub have been in the media since it completed its harbor trials.There was a good NDTV(?) videoclip as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Dec 2015 15:38

SaiK wrote:
pragnya wrote:am not sure but this animated video has quite good details of armaments...

they show different VLS config at 1:00 and 1:40ish.

? photoshop praablam or all naarmal nirmal?

These guys have made a great video using Blender. Real TFTA. Wish I could do that!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Dec 2015 15:53

ShauryaT wrote: Tsarkar: The references indicate, far more help in the design and construction process of the reactor and the entire vessel by the Russians than even you seem to suggest.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5yNC- ... nt&f=false

Shaurya what I find interesting about that page is its "Indian-ness" Let me explain that. the entire US space program can be described in the same words used for India's nuclear sub program - that it would have never have gone so far without scores of German engineers and designs brought to the US after the war. I never find the Americans attaching great importance to and putting great stress on recounting how much they got from Germany - but in that link there are at least two people who do exactly that about the sub program. On the one hand this could be called "disarming honesty" On the other hand it is needless self criticism and handing credit to someone else. It's a matter of perspective.

This is a unique Indian tendency - quite the opposite of the pride that say Pakis show in their claimed role in the JF-17, or the Chinese in their copied J 31 or whatever. We are a people who are always giving thanks to others but are always first to take the blame for things that go wrong. The Indian work that went in counts for nothing and gets no mention in that link. This is not just about this link but the examples are too numerous for me to recall. In the last few days I have seen a couple. But that is OT here. Maybe elsewhere.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Dec 2015 16:02

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Dec 2015 16:06

shiv, rightly said.

All I care about is India. Build, beg, borrow or steal, how does it matter? The fact is that we have our first n-sub. Would we rather not have a n-sub because it isn't kosher enough? Why the wailing? Who are we apologising to?

Someone in my family (now long retired) had long known about n-sub program. It had been in existence since mid-70s atleast. But like everything we do, things were scaled back or non-budged for no reason and many of the skills had to be re-learnt again and again by generations of engineers due to the stop-start nature of our planners. But, after the coming out party in 90s, it was pretty obvious what needed to be done and resources were committed to getting it thru. In 15 years when we have 6-8 subs patrolling the waters, the question being discussed on this forum will be a non-issue. Just ignore the baiters.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Dec 2015 18:17

That book excerpt being quoted as authoritative makes a perfect case of argument from authority. Just because the author is an Admiral, it is held all the statements within are true. A certain amount of gravitas, yes - especially when it comes to things like how the submarine would be used or deployed. Cent per cent accurate when it comes to development? Not certain. Further the author retired from the Indian Navy in 1998. Is he then personally aware of the DAE contribution to the program since it was declassified only a few years back? Clearly not, because he has to rely on several third party sources, one of whom is or should be completely disregarded in terms of any serious study.

But let's see further whom the author cites.

Then there is the statement the reactor was Russian designed. We know know since DAE released details, that is a complete misreading of the situation, to put it lightly. At best the Russians were consultants, but the reactor is Indian designed and developed. But as mentioned before, the details were declassified recently, so it can merely be relying on what's available.

Next, who is quoted? Bidwai, 2009. Praful Bidwai's statements on Indian defence were an exercise in mendacity, less said the better. In short, just because some book says something and some Air Marshal says LCA is American or General says Arjun is German etc.. It doesn't become true!

Lets move to the credible sources cited from the tech side - one of the key ones is Parathasarathi. This is a man who would be in the know of things - assuming it refers to Ashok Parathasarathi. And what does he say - Russians extended assistance over the 25 year program for the Arihant. Read that carefully - thats the entire timeframe from the 1980's, not just 1998 onwards. His statements are credible because he was one of the key gents who was involved with multiple defense programs from the tech transfer, design side & actually worked out such arrangements.

In short, the Russian assistance existed for a long long time, yet it took the DAE so many years to develop the reactor with local industry. Does this sound in any which way like some "Russian designed 83MW reactor" which took 25 years for India to master? In short this is what is referred to as the classic drawback of relying on multiple sources, some of which can be credible and some of which are not - leading to a confused melange of reports which the author then tries to make sense of, but which may not always be accurate.

As regards the depth of Russian support, as I already mentioned, it was especially true for ancillary systems and raw materials. Without that, there would be no Arihant. Question is whether our indigenization program extends beyond the Arihant for the follow on programs.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Dec 2015 18:33

Do you really believe that a country that wouldn't share the details of the steel alloy used in naval ship building, would give us a proven reactor design? I think it is disrespectful to the nation and it's engineers to not give them credit before some vague foreign hand. So, I'd say this isn't honesty or self-criticism and anyone insisting on the reverse cannot pretend to be nationalist/patriot/jingo on this forum and should be prepared to take it on his chin. As Aamir Khan learnt, democracy also allows intolerance in equal measure and if you like the foreign hand(/land) so much why feel insulted when you get identified as their stooge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Dec 2015 18:51

And this is the "source" Admiral Koithara cites for Russian reactor.
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/sinki ... 090803.htm
The title "Sinking billions into nuclear weapons" and the author Praful Bidwai

who says:

But the rationale of nuclear deterrence is based on inducing terror through mass destruction weapons.

According to that doctrine, you prevent your enemy from nuking you by threatening 'unacceptable damage' through an attack which instantly kills hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians. Nuclear deterrence is a deeply flawed doctrine and was described for half-a-century by India as morally 'abhorrent' and strategically irrational.

However, what of the claim that the Arihant is an indigenous technological feat, which shows mastery of 'complex' skills of compacting the reactor which propels the submarine? In fact, the core of the Arihant technology lies in the reactor's design and construction. And that technology came from Russia. Scores of Russian engineers were sent to India to aid the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO).

It was the Russians who supplied the vital designs, precision equipment based on their VM-5 reactor, and the technology of miniaturising the reactor.

Rest of the (f)article is a similar screed trying to a) claim India should not have nuclear weapons b ) India can't do anything on its own c )Its all Russian.

Judge for yourself how "authoritative" such sources really are.

He is the one who apparently floated the canard that everything failed and India just fitted in some Russian reactor since 1998. People are free to believe what they want, but I for one, would not touch anything this "peace activist" cooked up.

The internet is nothing but an echo chamber and once some chap like this with media access cooks up a story, multiple sources then cite him, other sources cite those and some canard floated by a chap who has never worked on any reactor in his life, suddenly becomes the "true story of the Arihant".

You search for Praful Bidwai and the host of linked super nuclear strategists google throws up are:
Romila Thapar Puniyani Teesta Setalvad Seema Mustafa

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Dec 2015 20:54

^Ah!!! Get it now ... it's our own Purefool is it, who is now being sited as the purest form of information about something Indian?

Wow!! Such is the level of desperation, nowadays to denigrate indigenous weapon development programs

... but it's all kosher, I guess, when you have a gent collecting his hard-labored jaziya of denigrating another indigenous program for years together, from his French masters.

Shivji, I don't know why your piskology doesn't dwell on the worthies here who never tire to quote these fine gentlemen to run-down an indigenous program.

Anyway, carry on!!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 Dec 2015 23:38

shiv wrote:The Indian work that went in counts for nothing and gets no mention in that link. This is not just about this link but the examples are too numerous for me to recall. In the last few days I have seen a couple. But that is OT here. Maybe elsewhere.

Shjv ji: I have a hard copy of the book and it is largely about Indian work towards management of nuclear forces, a bit boring sometimes but do not view Adm. Koithara as someone opposed to Indian work, in fact I am critical of some of the key presumptions he makes on management of nuclear forces, but that is OT. The fact that he chose not to highlight the many statements from the DAE/BARC on the matter is a choice he has made. You can attribute that to his "so called" psychological profile or an informed choice.

My interest on the issue is not to delve into the minds and psychological profiles of people who have given their lives to the service of the nation. What has piqued my interest in the area is a question of strategic importance. This question has been on my mind for a few months now and will not bore you with the reams of background information one reads on the topic.

This background reads are on both sides of the coin, where BARC/DAE has come out stating their achievements and there are other reports, casting doubts on them. Let us say, I am biased against any pronouncements by DAE, unless proven. The question of Russian assistance would be moot, IF we are able to deliver upon some other key milestones. If you or anyone else can shed light on the questions I have, it will be appreciated.

Questions.

1. Do you think DAE will be able to scale the S1 design (the land based PWR, the pre-cursor to S2/Arihant reactor) to a higher output capacity to power the next generation larger SSBN, than the baby boomer the Arihant is. So, let us say produce around 130 MW? Something like this will be needed to provide the necessary speeds to the next generation SSN. Improving upon the conversion ration to power the turbines will also be an important design improvement. Looking for a simple yes/no answer with some reasoning. This should be a relatively simpler process compared to the next challenge, if we have control of the design.

2. Can we evolve a design from the PWR design of the Arihant to provide propulsion to our next aircraft carrier, the INS Vishal (10 times the tonnage of the Arihant) and avoid the temptations of the US to "help" India produce an EMALS catapult based carrier (understand there is an entire question of catapult technology, which is a separate issue). Are there any active DAE programs to produce such a reactor to power an AC, learning from the S1 design experience? Current readings point to a US led assist in the nuclear propulsion category for AC as "indispensable" for an EMALS based Catobar carrier.

The strategic implications of both these questions would not be lost on you. Anyways, where I am going with this is, to what degree are we self sufficient enough in under/above water nuclear propulsion to avoid being in the cobwebs of the major powers? Is the Akula II being considered to get deeper in these cobwebs? To me these are important national implication questions on the strategic choices we make and are able to make.

If you can shed light on the questions then great, else not interested in what Indians can or cannot do or what posters think of other posters and their piskologies or the character profiles of various reporters and opinion makers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 00:06

>>Let us say, I am biased against any pronouncements by DAE, unless proven.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Unproven assertions claiming Russia is the be-all and end-all are OK but any Indian assertion of competence automatically gets short thrift. These are basically piskology issues as Maitya says, and hence its clearly pointless bringing a data based source to point to the reality.

After all, if DAE pronouncements of competence elicit bias and are dismissed, then all that remains is to wait for the next ship/s to appear since DAE data won't be enough.

Even then, claims may be made that its Russian. Heads you win, tails DAE loses. Zimble.

PS: 130MW from 83MW is a 60% increase. Anything but simple, given naval submarine requirements, size/volume restrictions.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 04 Dec 2015 00:32

Karan M wrote: .............................................
Lets move to the credible sources cited from the tech side - one of the key ones is Parathasarathi. This is a man who would be in the know of things - assuming it refers to Ashok Parathasarathi. And what does he say - Russians extended assistance over the 25 year program for the Arihant. Read that carefully - thats the entire timeframe from the 1980's, not just 1998 onwards. His statements are credible because he was one of the key gents who was involved with multiple defense programs from the tech transfer, design side & actually worked out such arrangements.

In short, the Russian assistance existed for a long long time, yet it took the DAE so many years to develop the reactor with local industry. Does this sound in any which way like some "Russian designed 83MW reactor" which took 25 years for India to master? In short this is what is referred to as the classic drawback of relying on multiple sources, some of which can be credible and some of which are not - leading to a confused melange of reports which the author then tries to make sense of, but which may not always be accurate...................

This 25 years statement is as true as what people say about LCA, that it took 25+ years and still in the making.

Arihant SSBN is as Indian as it can get, built with friendly assistance from Russians. And no one has concrete data to challenge the exact percentage of assistance, as it cannot be calculated. Hence lets stop this discussion at that.

member_29004 · Post by **member_29004** » 04 Dec 2015 00:40

If it was a 'russian design, or 'considerable' russian assistance, you can bet everything you have that they would have gone for a proven and a better output giving design KPM or OK650B .....

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 04 Dec 2015 00:54

^^ Why take this discussion in a direction where its bound to fail? You won't believe even if Putin steps off a Tu-160 in Delhi and say the same.

Arihant is a stepping stone for India, at this juncture it does not matter how we got there. Just like Nilgiri class was for our surface fleet. 10-20 years down the line we will have things to counter the likes of Type 95-100 whatever the next number is.

member_29004 · Post by **member_29004** » 04 Dec 2015 01:00

Sid wrote:^^ Why take this discussion in a direction where its bound to fail? You won't believe even if Putin steps off a Tu-160 in Delhi and say the same.

Arihant is a stepping stone for India, at this juncture it does not matter how we got there. Just like Nilgiri class was for our surface fleet. 10-20 years down the line we will have things to counter the likes of Type 95-100 whatever the next number is.

npro

It doesnt make any logical sense to me, that if we bought the tech from Russians, lock stock and barrel, or they guided us through it completely that we would go for a unproven and tiny reactor like 83 MWe, It doesn't make sense from Risk, economic and project management perspectives.. It is is illogical ,

Russians assistance, definitely there, but it was nowhere as significant as we believe it is.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Dec 2015 01:21

Let's stop this discussion. People will not change their views.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2015 06:44

ShauryaT wrote: Questions.

1. Do you think DAE will be able to scale the S1 design (the land based PWR, the pre-cursor to S2/Arihant reactor) to a higher output capacity to power the next generation larger SSBN, than the baby boomer the Arihant is. So, let us say produce around 130 MW? Something like this will be needed to provide the necessary speeds to the next generation SSN. Improving upon the conversion ration to power the turbines will also be an important design improvement. Looking for a simple yes/no answer with some reasoning. This should be a relatively simpler process compared to the next challenge, if we have control of the design.

2. Can we evolve a design from the PWR design of the Arihant to provide propulsion to our next aircraft carrier, the INS Vishal (10 times the tonnage of the Arihant) and avoid the temptations of the US to "help" India produce an EMALS catapult based carrier (understand there is an entire question of catapult technology, which is a separate issue). Are there any active DAE programs to produce such a reactor to power an AC, learning from the S1 design experience? Current readings point to a US led assist in the nuclear propulsion category for AC as "indispensable" for an EMALS based Catobar carrier.

Q1: In the absence of technical detail as to what we did and what the Russians gave us this question cannot be answered. None of those links help us answer the question. They only leave doubts and a sense of helplessness. Was the work done in India completely pointless - like screwdriver and paint? To me no solutions are suggested - like a doctor making a diagnosis without offering relief

Q2: Can we evolve a bigger design? Based on the information I can see the answer must be "No we can never evolve or design anything unless the Russians or Americans help us"

The point is that on this thread any discussion of what the Arihant has brought us is being linked to what the Russians gave us. Is it possible to delink Russian inputs from what was done in India? If that is delinked are we left with nothing worth mentioning? If that is the case why are we even talking about 130 MW reactors and not taking US help?

Is it possible to say what was done in India? If Indian inputs were worthless, then the questions are pointless. What I am seeing on this thread is that any attempt to point out that something might have been done in India is answered by instilling doubt and not by expanding on detail. Why?

If no one knows exactly what the Russians gave us an no one knows what was done in India, exactly what is being discussed? I can answer that question in part. The Russians are making no statements about what they gave us (like they do about aircraft). Indians are giving a mixed picture. Some scientists have pointed out that the reactor was built and tested in India. Others have said "Russian help". Instead of trying to analyse some technical detail about what might have been shared we are arguing around utter superficialities "Russians gave us" "No they did not" "Russians gave us" "No they did not"

Ultimately this has got to be one of the more stupid discussions on BRF because I can bet my left ball that not one person on here has a single clue about what it takes to build any nuclear reactor other than Uranium and Russia. So what are we talking about?

How about some detail? Did Russia provide us with enriched Uranium? Did we enrich it ourselves? Did Russia give us drawings? Or did the simply suggest that size X containing Y amount of Uranium is adequate for Z power and we did the rest ourselves? Without knowing or revealing what it takes to build any reactor what is this Russia India argument that is being made by everyone including the experts in that book? And how can any questions be answered when everyone is only questioning the ability without delving into any detail? Does anyone even know about reactors?

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 04 Dec 2015 07:12

There is the question of why would Russia design and build the entire thing for us if we were not there or there abouts?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2015 13:34

Here is a link to some basics of how a submarine nuclear reactor works
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html

Apart from small size, and need for long term, maintenance free reliability it is just another PW reactor, which India has built. But obviously the design is complex. There are hundreds of critical components and dozens of critical materials. Components are custom built for the sub in question depending in its size and proposed displacement.

Which area did Russians contribute? And to what extent? Where did they give us nothing, requiring us to stand on our own feet?

Without answers to these questions it is better IMO to think that Arihant has been done in India and two more are in the works. All the news so far seems to be good. Where is the exact need to be negative, cautious or remonstrative of what we have seen so far? We can only do what we can do. We can't do what we can't. This may sound like a no brainer but it can't be if we don't get it. Unless there is some hard data on what we can and can't do we are simply buggering around the question. Not to forget the fact that there is sure to be some deliberate obfuscation when it comes to this kind of project.

I am just astounded at how much effort we spend on making sure that someone else gets credit even when we don't know the extent to which credit is due. This sounds like some idealistic Yudishtira type dharmic honesty being displayed here. "I will never claim credit because the work is not my own. I thank my parents, teachers, friends, colleagues, well wishers, Russians etc" I mean I don't see BMW and Mercedes doing pranaams in every ad to Henry Ford for making car popular and devising assembly lines. Agreed the Russians are acknowledged to have helped. Thank you. We need to move on.

member_29247 · Post by **member_29247** » 04 Dec 2015 14:13

Metallurgy
Regarding the reactor and shielding material for the reactor must have come from Russians.
Safety and disaster recovery equipment
Welding and fabrication materials

Indian effort and contribution
Fuel fabrication
Control system for the reactor
Drive motors
Generators

Forgings
Castings
Propulsion control systems

Warfare systems

Communication systems

Most importantly

Canteen and Kitchen design to handle automation of making daal roti manufacturing
So prestige pressure cooker reactors by TTK industry all stainless steel as per Liquid Air ( France design ) of Pressure vessels

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 14:49

Shivji, I posted exactly what BARC has done. Its a good read. All credit to TSS for reporting this level of detail.

http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/crit ... 038061.ece

Multidisciplinary effort

Building Arihant’s reactor was essentially a multidisciplinary effort that involved fuel development, thermal and mechanical engineering to manufacture the reactor pressure vessel, steam generators and high pressure components, control rod mechanism, control and instrumentation, electromechanical systems, drive mechanisms, and so on.

“It is a marriage of all these systems to make the reactor work efficiently,” Banerjee said in August 2009. “It is not desktop research at all,” he emphasised.

BARC’s engineers and scientists were involved in all this, from engineering the concept to the final product development. For everything had to be developed from scratch and there was absolutely no technology available to India on the PWR. {So much for claims of Russia transferred a design, all they have done is provide consultancy for folks working on the reactor and supply fuel till RMP plant came up for the land based prototype}

While V.K. Mehra gave leadership to the reactor development programme and H.S. Kamat was in charge of fuel development, B.K. Bera, A.K. Suri and R.P. Singh played important roles on the fuel side. The contribution of G.P. Srivastava, M. Mahapatra and R.K. Patil was formidable in control and instrumentation. R.S. Yadav dealt with the design and manufacture of one of the most important components, the reactor pressure vessel. C.G. Utge was responsible for the development of high-pressure, high-temperature equipment.

Why was PWR, not Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) technology which India had mastered and used to build several commercial reactors, chosen to propel the submarine? PWRs use enriched uranium as fuel and light water as coolant and moderator. In contrast, PHWRs use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both coolant and moderator. “PHWR is not something which you can make into a compact form,” said Banerjee, who later became AEC Chairman. Besides, nuclear energy generation depends on the quantity of fissile material available in the reactor and the PWR lent itself admirably for this with a high availability of fissile material (uranium-235) in enriched uranium. While plutonium also can be used as fuel, enriched uranium-driven fuel is generally adopted for reactors that propel submarines.

The question now arose whether India had the capability to enrich uranium. (If the non-fissile U-238 is removed from natural uranium, then the U-235 concentration will go up. This is called enrichment of uranium. This is done by a series of chemical and physical processes. If one uses enriched uranium as fuel, the availability of neutrons is high enough to generate electricity and one can use light water as coolant and moderator.)

So a small plant was set up at Ratnahalli near Mysore in 1990 for enriching uranium, and work on designing the enriched uranium fuel for the submarine’s nuclear power pack also began. BARC made a technological breakthrough in developing all the centrifuges needed for enriching uranium without any external help. The centrifuges were needed to separate U-238 from U-235 so that the concentration of U-235 went up, but the separation technology itself was very complex. To sustain the centrifugal forces, centrifuges were to have a high strength-to-weight ratio. Yet, they had to be thin. So maraging steel was used in the manufacture of centrifuges.

The next step was to process the enriched uranium into fuel. Banerjee said: “This is also crucial because unlike in the case of fuel for the land-based reactor, here the fuel had to be monolithic. This required special fabrication techniques that allow you to make the fuel withstand the rolling, pitching and other movements of the submarine…. In Trombay, we developed the right kind of fuel.”

Reactor development

The reactor development itself was a big and tough task. At the heart of the reactor is its pressure vessel, which houses the fuel. Developing the pressure vessel entailed the use of a special technology and a special steel. The material had to have high fracture toughness and the toughness had to be retained even if the steel got exposed to radiation. So a special type of steel was developed to withstand the radiation environment.

The design of the vessel was another major challenge. The issue of the reactor’s compactness came in. The entire PWR had to fit into the cramped space of the submarine’s hull. Steam generators, tall structures consisting of a maze of pipes, posed another big problem. They produced steam to drive the turbine which generated electricity. So the steam generator and the pressure vessel were designed in such a way that every small space in the hull was made use of. This was a very important mechanical engineering design, which BARC engineers, after many trials and efforts, evolved.

Development of hundreds of subsystems and high-pressure valves and pumps posed various challenges, which were met by BARC engineers. Indian industry rose to the occasion by manufacturing them.

The entire reactor structure had to be designed in such a way that it is stable when the submarine accelerates. What had to be taken into account here was that the reactor was housed in a submarine that sped under water. The thrust generated by the submarine’s propulsion required a design for the reactor that was different from that of a nuclear power reactor on terra firma.

“In designing the propulsion of the submarine, we had to take into account the various sea conditions, including rough sea, the submarine’s pitching and rolling, the effect of saline water, enemy action which includes underwater explosions/depth charges and internal conditions,” explained Basu. “Yet another factor is that the propulsion plant had to be compact and so weight and volume had to be minimised. Thirdly, the plant had to be very reliable. It is moving under water, hundreds of kilometres away from the shore. In case of an accident, no help will be available from outside. So back-up safety systems should function perfectly.”

So, the design of the safety system was crucial. BARC went for passive safety systems, which would not need an external source of electricity, to come into action. The passive thermo-siphoning system will come into play in abnormal conditions. Since a submarine’s reactor has no exclusion zone, unlike its counterpart on land where no human settlement is allowed a few kilometres around it, gamma shielding, and partly neutron shielding, by water was done.

In land-based reactors, control rods fall by gravity and bring the reactors to a halt in case of an accident. But the rolling and pitching of the boat demands that the control-rod mechanism is designed suitably to take care of the submarine’s various movements. “Since power has to be generated in a regulated manner, it puts a lot of restrictions on the design of the control mechanisms. Diverse techniques were used to design them. We had to take into consideration the possibility of the boat going upside down. So special sensors and drives were made for ensuring a safe and reliable operation of the control-rod mechanisms,” said Srivastava in August 2009. Indeed, 13 control mechanisms were accommodated within a diameter of 0.8 metre.

BARC also built a simulator at Visakhapatnam to train navy personnel in operating the reactor. When the Russians were shown this simulator, they were amazed at its sophistication.

In the Arihant project, which went under the name of ATV programme, DRDO laboratories contributed sonars, sensors, sound absorption materials, communication equipment, electronics and weapons. While the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Kochi, contributed sensors to Arihant, special acoustics were done by the Naval Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), Visakhapatnam.

In the end, as Banerjee emphasised, it boiled down to teamwork in a multidisciplinary project and he called the platform “a very complex combination of various technologies”. As Kakodkar said, “This PWR technology is very complex. You have to make it extremely compact and pack it in the cramped space of the submarine’s hull. It was a big challenge.”

Today, India can assert that it has mastered the technology of developing and manufacturing nuclear propulsion for driving submarines. The proof of it lies in three more nuclear-powered submarines being built at Visakhapatnam. When the four submarines, including Arihant, patrol the seas, India will have achieved the status of a blue-water navy.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 14:53

Now the bigger question is whether India can make a 150MW reactor etc. It clearly can, but it will take time and will be a huge effort in its own right.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 04 Dec 2015 15:02

Why not begin with twin 80MW cores instead of a bigger 150MW?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 15:58

I presume the IN would want minimal moving parts (doubled with the twin reactors) to minimize noise plus there is the issue of size/volume and fuelling considerations as well. If the reactors are not drop in, full lifetime systems, that's another challenge.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2015 17:17

JTull wrote:Why not begin with twin 80MW cores instead of a bigger 150MW?

Two separate sets of radiation shields weighing 100 tons each?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 04 Dec 2015 17:59

One offset I see is its future integration in Aircraft carrier. Although there was big hulla gulla in France when they leveraged their nuke plant from their SSBN into Charles de Gaulle. Not sure what the issues exactly were.

Meanwhile from NDTV on current thread discussion -

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/russians ... kar-399140

Made in complete secrecy, it was talked about in hushed whispers. Now in an exclusive interview to NDTV's Science Editor Pallava Bagla, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar reveals that Russians did help and that it really is a very quiet vessel that adds to India's strategic depth.

Here are some excerpts from this exclusive interview recorded right inside the top secret facility in Kalpakkam on the coast of the Bay of Bengal.

Q: Was this completely made in India?

A: Yes.

Q: Designed, fabricated and executed in India?

A: Yes, that's right, by Indian industries.

Q: And by Indian scientists?

A: Yes

Q: At Vizag, the Prime Minister went out of the way and thanked the Russians, and the Russian ambassador was also present. What was the role of the Russians? India had leased a Russian nuclear submarine?

A: I would also like to thank our Russian colleagues they have played a very important role as consultants, they have a lot of experience in this so their consultancy has been of great help so that so that I think we should acknowledge.

Q: Consultancy for what?

A: For various things, as you go along when you are doing things for the first time with a consultant by your side you can do it more confidently and these are difficult time consuming challenges so you have to do this without too much of iterative steps and this helped in that.

Q: So this is not a Russian design?

A: It is an Indian design.

Q: Indian design, made in India, by Indians?

A: Yes, that's right.

Q: Is the noise level comparable to other submarines of this class, since that is a way of detecting submarines?

A: Yes, I think so. You have seen the inside and tell me if you felt some sound there?

Q: Compared to a power reactor the sound was minimal.

A: Compared to machinery running in any other places, did you hear much sound? I think this is very quiet system.

member_29247 · Post by **member_29247** » 04 Dec 2015 19:32

Q: So this is not a Russian design?

A: It is an Indian design.

Q: Indian design, made in India, by Indians?

A: Yes, that's right.

Metallurgy Ferrous and Non Ferrous
Light weight Alloys, Material Science Carbon fibers Nano tubes has been our big short coming

which impacts

Gas Turbine Engine, Light weight alloy forgings and castings, composite components manufacture, micro electronics, Transducers, sensors, electro mechanical sensors, IR and UV sensors, Glass based optical equipment.

This where the Russian help might have expedited the program.

This is where our focus has to be, when India starts making Nikon Grade lenses, medical equipment for optometry then India has truly arrived. We can then make UAV or MALE or what ever Israelis make. The key is precision and micro component manufacture.

How many medical devices (contemporary , not Hg Thermometer are completely made in India? Even the hospital furniture (beds Chairs etc is not satisfactory quality.

once you answer

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 04 Dec 2015 20:12

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 4m4 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The reactor physics is Russian. The reactor is Indian. 'Nuff said.

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 04 Dec 2015 22:35

I think they could assisted in the propulsion area not the reactor per say...I am only speculating.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 23:07

Vivek - the fact that you admit you are speculating automatically makes you more reliable than the bidwais wagehra.

BTW I think saurav is just wrong on this one.

Its not the physics where the Russian consultancy worked. The physics is grade A IP, which Russia will never transfer to anyone just like that. They'll give you the reactor but not the physics.

The Russian help would have been in was in what is referred to as the test and development process. The Russians etc offer guidance on making sure all i's are dotted and t's crossed. Plus tell the design team to continue plodding if the basic approach is correct. At the end of the day you have to do all the work yourself. Once in a rare while the Indian side may get stuck. The design consultant partner is then expected to chip in. However, depending on the program that itself turns out to be a huge exercise in diplomacy & contacts.

The Brahmos on Sukhoi is a perfect example. Simply put, the Russians don't provide anything gratis or easy & the support is finely nuanced.

Note the Russians supplied fuel (per India Strategic) for the land based PWR prototype (till RMP Mysore's supply could be made into fuel). They didn't supply the fuel for the Arihant. This sort of stuff allows both sides to meet international obligations yet meet the spirit of the agreement/consultancy.

Similarly, for the Arihant itself, the steel for the submarine may have initially come from Russia (now we have our own supply). This & fitments would be per Russian GOST type standards which would mean Russian engineers, welders etc would have had to work with Indian crew to ensure we could use the metal properly (one of the sticking points for Soryu to Australia is the Soryu's Japanese steel which is harder to work with & Japanese skepticism about Australian welders ignited a diplomatic firestorm). Again look at when indigenous steel for submarines etc became available in plenty. Before that you would have made use of Russian assistance, which would have been taken for the program as a whole, which is what BARC noted. I know of international steel firms which refused to work with India since the tenders for supplies had SBC on them & everyone knew what that program was for.

Similarly, Russia has a huge range of infrastructure facilities to test a lot of items and designs - eg underwater testbeds for hydrodynamic validation. These sort of facilities would be made available to India for testing its Arihant designs, which would have gone through multiple iterations.

Other items which were supplied for Arihant from Russia were the systems and fitments which go into the submarines. There is a huge range of such items which India could not indigenize (either cost or technological limitations and the clock was running). These were sourced from Russia too.

In short the assistance was definitely there & substantial, but of an order of magnitude different than the reactor being given by Russia and such core items. Note India is designing the next SSNs on its own (again consultancy to avail of best practices and infrastructure may be taken, but the design will be Indian).
So even the design & overall capabilities will be in Indian control.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 04 Dec 2015 23:16

I dont think Arihant was 100% Indian design. The design documents were written in English which was invented in UK. Look, even the interview was in english!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Dec 2015 23:26

BTW, the proof of how the Arihant design (reactor especially) was developed iteratively and not paradropped post 1998 can be seen from the land based prototype reactor. This was initiated in 1999. Even a TOT would not have been done so quickly. The Russians provided fuel (per India Strategic) for this & the reactor went critical in 2003. It was finally operational in 2006. Basically running at full load, the same as the Arihant reactor going active in 2013 and now we are hearing its ready for trials in 2015-early 2016. So BARC had progressed the design fairly substantially by 1998, by which time the Russian consultancy etc had already been taken (as was done for the entire sub) & the key hold up was fuel & a range of other items, including contracts for additional systems etc. This is what the post 1998 funding achieved, it sped up the quantum of assistance for the submarine above and beyond consultancy, to providing access to Russian firms for custom developed assemblies etc. However, the core reactor, submarine design etc are Indian & a lot of the electronics, weapon sensors etc as well.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 00:04

The light water reactor tech itself is russian.
Both Kudankulam and S1 were developing in parallel.

The delhi class destroyer is a prime example of indian design with russian input, russian sensors and weapon. The powerplant is imported as are the propellers.
And this was the first sub India built.

That Kilo, that was stripped down and in repairs for a decade, was how SBC/L&T learnt sub building.
The reactor itself would have so much advise from the russians as to be nearly impossible to build in the given timeline on our own. And then to navalize that reactor, draw inspiration from the chakra's reactor layout.
Reactor design, sheilding, metallurgy, valves/components/electronics/piping, acoustics management is so extensive, as to have been all needing extensive guidance.

In the end, it was all done on Indian soil, using the capabilities of BARC, and others.
In the end, India jumped several generations of naval reactor tech to make a very modern reactor. I wouldn't deny the russians their due.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 05 Dec 2015 00:10

Gagan wrote:I wouldn't deny the russians their due.

With a back handed compliment you're really aren't giving BARC any credit either!