INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Philip, unless each mirv can take 200kt thermowalas, then I see a good pic of that configuration. Now, I don't want people to assume that we have that capability.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
under some strategic forces reduction treaty the trident missile mirv carriage was reduced to 4 from 12 iirc. the topol-M also carries a single warhead though it can easily carry more.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Just hope the second ATV is a bigger boat
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
I want the second ATV or at least the third ATV to use our indigenous thorium based reactors. If we can do this safely, then voila!!! even sky is not the limit looking and feeling from mariana trench [theorizing]. I am off the believers, if we aim for sky, we get at least the surface level success.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Why the sad face? Considering the complexity of an SSBN and the fact that we hadn't designed and built any type of submarine till now, starting off with a smaller boat was definitely a good idea.Will wrote:Just hope the second ATV is a bigger boat
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
SaiK, Dont dream unobtanium dreams. Think of other aspects like sub safety for the personnel with liquid sodium etc.
The problem of aiming for deep space is its so far out that all acheivements look not enough.
Those policy gurus who retire and write nonsense about how they planned to reach Aldeberan at warp speed makes the Moon/Mars project look like baby stuff.
The problem with India is too many dreamers and not enough realizers.
BTW to get economies of scale atleast three of kind have to be built. It comes from learning curve statistics and not any mumbo jumbo.
The problem of aiming for deep space is its so far out that all acheivements look not enough.
Those policy gurus who retire and write nonsense about how they planned to reach Aldeberan at warp speed makes the Moon/Mars project look like baby stuff.
The problem with India is too many dreamers and not enough realizers.
BTW to get economies of scale atleast three of kind have to be built. It comes from learning curve statistics and not any mumbo jumbo.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
In 1980,the size of the Israeli bomb was "2ft. long and 22" in dia.In an ironic fact that should be publicised,the Israelis and Iranians actually collaborated together in developing a nuclear-tipped missile under "Operation Flower",when the Shah was in power.This $1B ultra-secret programme was hatched between the two def. mins,Ezer Weizmann and Hassan Toufanian in late 1977.The missile with a warhead of 750kg was to have had a range of 200+ km.The US was against giving the Israelis the Pershing,the Soviets anything equivalent too.Therefore the secret deal was hatched between the two seemingly antagonistic nations.
It was an oil-for-arms deal brokered by a Swiss entity,since Israel was facing an oil embargo from the Arab states.The assembly line was to be in Iran,Sirjin,with a 747 capable runway for flown in components from Israel.The Israeli project even then was to have had the ability of the weapon to be launched from subs! Israel had just recd. 3 Vickers built subs.This would've given the Israelis the capability to hit Libya,Tunis and Alexandria in Egypt.The money (oil) flowed into Israel from the Shah,$250m in '78 alone.However,the project suffered a major setback due to the fall of the Shah,but was reportedly completed by Israel.Israeli missiles are supposedly hidden in UG bunkers and on rail cars hidden in caves.With the controversial (Gunther Grass's diatribe against the sale) acquisition of the German built Dolphin subs ,even newer and more deadly warheads would've been developed and much longer ranged cruise missiles to carry the warheads.Terribly ironic at this time of tension with Iran to acknowledge that the Israeli nuclear deterrent was part funded by Iran itself!
I am mentioning this titbit from history to show how small an Israeli N-warhead is/was way back in '77.From these stats one can see how many MIRVs we can also carry atop each ICBM whose diameter we must assume is that of one silo on the ATV,which can carry 3 K-15 750km+ missiles.Enjoy working out that oneself!
It was an oil-for-arms deal brokered by a Swiss entity,since Israel was facing an oil embargo from the Arab states.The assembly line was to be in Iran,Sirjin,with a 747 capable runway for flown in components from Israel.The Israeli project even then was to have had the ability of the weapon to be launched from subs! Israel had just recd. 3 Vickers built subs.This would've given the Israelis the capability to hit Libya,Tunis and Alexandria in Egypt.The money (oil) flowed into Israel from the Shah,$250m in '78 alone.However,the project suffered a major setback due to the fall of the Shah,but was reportedly completed by Israel.Israeli missiles are supposedly hidden in UG bunkers and on rail cars hidden in caves.With the controversial (Gunther Grass's diatribe against the sale) acquisition of the German built Dolphin subs ,even newer and more deadly warheads would've been developed and much longer ranged cruise missiles to carry the warheads.Terribly ironic at this time of tension with Iran to acknowledge that the Israeli nuclear deterrent was part funded by Iran itself!
I am mentioning this titbit from history to show how small an Israeli N-warhead is/was way back in '77.From these stats one can see how many MIRVs we can also carry atop each ICBM whose diameter we must assume is that of one silo on the ATV,which can carry 3 K-15 750km+ missiles.Enjoy working out that oneself!
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
So those are the Kalam's flowers when he alludes to Agony payloads!
Deep.
Deep.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Ramana ji, for how long can ratehalli provide the necessary maals? totally agree on the safety aspects of u233.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
PS,in continuation of my earlier post,the size of the Israeli bomb became known because the Israeli's were allegedly being helped by American nuclear scientists who leaked the details! It is not known whether this was official US assistance to Israel,just as the Chinese gave Pak the bomb,delivery systems and their designs,or whether it was rogue Yanqui scientists moonlighting for Israel,as the state has enormous clout and influence in the US.,yet also spies on it too,take the Pollard case for ex.Until Vanunu exposed Israel's secret arsenal and facilities,the world had little inkling of its N-capability.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
But both appear to have different sizes.SagarAg wrote:^No
Its a kilo class. Infact both are Kilo class submarines
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 627
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Going to have my first kid and it is a boy.... planning to name him "Arihant"... cheers.. !!
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
congrats and bravo! /ot
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
INS Arihant undergoes sea acceptance trials
SOURCE: INDIAN EXPRESS
SOURCE: INDIAN EXPRESS
In a major step towards achieving allround ability to launch nuclear payload from air, land and water, a miniature 83 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR), was fitted into INS Arihant and trials were conducted.The PWR is fuelled by highly-enriched uranium, which was developed with the help of Russians. The submarine was launched into the water last year and began its ‘sea acceptance trials’ (SAT) earlier this year wherein it was taken out of the harbour to conduct crucial trials.
“The nuclear reactor was fitted into the submarine for the first time some time back. Since it is the first time that India has built a miniature nuclear reactor for moving platform, it has to be tested when the submarine undergoes various kinds of motion like rolling and pitching,” sources said.
The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant (literally meaning slayer of enemies). The enriched uranium for the reactor comes from the Rare Materials Project, an undertaking of the Department of Atomic Energy, situated at Ratnahallai, near Mysore. With INS Arihant, India has become the sixth country after the US, Russia, China, France and Britain to have succeeded in constructing a nuclear submarine.
At the end of the trial Arihant will be given a nuclear regulatory authority certification before it could be deployed in the open oceans.As India has a policy of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, a robust and survivable retaliatory strike capability is
dependent on this nuclear-powered submarine. This makes Arihant a shot in the arm for India’s nuclear triad. With its ability to remain submerged in the waters for infinite time, Arihant with its stealth can remain undetected by the army and can fire its nuclear-tipped missiles from under the sea.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Yipeee....
Where is the party icon when you need one!
Where is the party icon when you need one!
Sea trials are done?a miniature 83 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR), was fitted into INS Arihant and trials were conducted
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
i think sea trials for arihant are likely to run 12-18 months before the green flag is waved.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Does this settle the 83MW thermal Vs Electrical power output debate here when Arihant was launched. Now its clear its the Electrical units.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
I think the article doesnt categorically say that the trials have been completed, only that its still continuining from what I infer. Isnt this something we already know.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
^^ There were earlier reports that the reactor hadnt even been fitted in and hadnt been powered and the Arihant was only running on the backup source. Atleast, we now know that it has moved beyond that
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Are they talking of pre-trials before criticality or has the reactor now gone critical , last month or so there was news that reactor will go critical in few months time.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
So, the PWR was developed with russian help? then why is BARC feeling:keshavchandra wrote:.The PWR is fuelled by highly-enriched uranium,[/b] which was developed with the help of Russians.
Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this.The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
"So, the PWR was developed with russian help? then why is BARC feeling:
Quote:
The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant
Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this."
It could be editing problems once again in the Indian media. During a recent space launch, it was said that the satellite was the 'heaviest satellite launched by ISRO'. Whereas it was the heaviest satellite launched by the PSLV. Even worse editing took place a few years ago when it was claimed that cryogenic engine technology would 'go into the Agni missile programme'( say, what?).
It would be nice if it was spelled out clearly what exactly the Russians helped out with, and what the Indians did on their own. Wasn't the reactor itself Indian designed, but fitting it into the submarine was a task taken with Russian consultancy? Something like that.
Quote:
The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant
Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this."
It could be editing problems once again in the Indian media. During a recent space launch, it was said that the satellite was the 'heaviest satellite launched by ISRO'. Whereas it was the heaviest satellite launched by the PSLV. Even worse editing took place a few years ago when it was claimed that cryogenic engine technology would 'go into the Agni missile programme'( say, what?).
It would be nice if it was spelled out clearly what exactly the Russians helped out with, and what the Indians did on their own. Wasn't the reactor itself Indian designed, but fitting it into the submarine was a task taken with Russian consultancy? Something like that.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
well do you really think that they gonna cough out the detail of the Russian help not in a million years......Varoon Shekhar wrote:"So, the PWR was developed with russian help? then why is BARC feeling:
Quote:
The challenge for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre was to make a compact reactor to fit into the 10-m diameter hull of INS Arihant
Q: did the russians help BARC in miniaturization then? we need to exactly know what Russians helped here... just to avoid going paki on this."
It could be editing problems once again in the Indian media. During a recent space launch, it was said that the satellite was the 'heaviest satellite launched by ISRO'. Whereas it was the heaviest satellite launched by the PSLV. Even worse editing took place a few years ago when it was claimed that cryogenic engine technology would 'go into the Agni missile programme'( say, what?).
It would be nice if it was spelled out clearly what exactly the Russians helped out with, and what the Indians did on their own. Wasn't the reactor itself Indian designed, but fitting it into the submarine was a task taken with Russian consultancy? Something like that.
more over my knowledge serves consultation means not giving the whole technology of the reactor but advising BARC where to put what and where can you place the core and how big the core is and what power and what can the composition of the shield and how to make the reactor less detectable they just advice man and our guys should work based on that advice......
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Err....dont even bother expecting such details to ever come out for a decade atleast..It would be nice if it was spelled out clearly what exactly the Russians helped out with, and what the Indians did on their own. Wasn't the reactor itself Indian designed, but fitting it into the submarine was a task taken with Russian consultancy? Something like that.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Sekhar Basu takes over as BARC Director
Again, MWt used here? Didnt the previous article posted here say 80 MWe?Mr. Basu is one of the architects of India’s 80 MWt compact Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), which will power Arihant, the country’s nuclear-powered submarine.
Mr. Basu was shifted to Kalpakkam in 1988 and became the Director of BARC Facilities there. He was also the Project Director, Plutonium Recycling Project (PRP), at Kalpakkam, which built India’s first compact PWR. This shore-based reactor at Kalpakkam started operating from September 22, 2006. An exact replica of this has gone into Arihant, which was launched at Visakhapatnam on July 26, 2009.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
sum if you have followed all the discussion here and in previous thread , it been said many times that its 80 MWt and not MWe
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Austin there is antricle from Indian Express regarding operation trials stating 83 MWe. Hence the confusion again?Austin wrote:sum if you have followed all the discussion here and in previous thread , it been said many times that its 80 MWt and not MWe
Is there any chanakyanas in keeping people guessign MWe and MWt being done deliberately regarding Arihant? to keep people guessing.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
If that reactor generates 85MWe that would be the most energetic single reactor for naval applications that the world would have seen
The reactor for Arhiant is based on Russian design PWR reactor , its a 80 -90 MW(t ) reactor that would generate 16 - 18 MW(e)
The reactor for Arhiant is based on Russian design PWR reactor , its a 80 -90 MW(t ) reactor that would generate 16 - 18 MW(e)
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Are there 1-2 MW(e) small reactors out there, that one could use as AIP ?
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
the french rubis amethyste sub which is only as big as a Kilo used a K48 nuclear reactor listed as 48MW. must be 48MW(e) if we compare to the Arihant reactor.
presumably such kit could be further downsized.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=82844
presumably such kit could be further downsized.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=82844
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Interview with R.K. Sinha, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
The DAE is going to build a huge uranium enrichment plant in Chitradurga district in Karnataka. At what stage is the design of the indigenous LWRs, which will use enriched uranium as fuel?
The indigenous LWRs have been conceived to leverage the secondary steam cycle side technologies of our 700 MWe PHWRs. So far as the LWR technologies are concerned, we have already demonstrated our capability to design and construct compact LWRs for naval propulsion
How do you use the compact LWR at Kalpakkam? A reactor of the same size has gone into Arihant, the nuclear-powered submarine. Are you using the LWR at Kalpakkam to supply power to the grid?
No. It is not intended for supply of power. We are using it for training operators and maintenance personnel.
Are you using it to train naval personnel?
Yes. It is also serving as a platform for the demonstration of several indigenous technologies in the area of instrumentation and control for compact reactors. We have set up experimental facilities to study the corrosion-performance of new materials in simulated environmental conditions.
The DAE is going to build a huge uranium enrichment plant in Chitradurga district in Karnataka. At what stage is the design of the indigenous LWRs, which will use enriched uranium as fuel?
The indigenous LWRs have been conceived to leverage the secondary steam cycle side technologies of our 700 MWe PHWRs. So far as the LWR technologies are concerned, we have already demonstrated our capability to design and construct compact LWRs for naval propulsion
How do you use the compact LWR at Kalpakkam? A reactor of the same size has gone into Arihant, the nuclear-powered submarine. Are you using the LWR at Kalpakkam to supply power to the grid?
No. It is not intended for supply of power. We are using it for training operators and maintenance personnel.
Are you using it to train naval personnel?
Yes. It is also serving as a platform for the demonstration of several indigenous technologies in the area of instrumentation and control for compact reactors. We have set up experimental facilities to study the corrosion-performance of new materials in simulated environmental conditions.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Okay, that is chaiwala enough about the Russian design origins.Austin wrote:The reactor for Arhiant is based on Russian design PWR reactor , its a 80 -90 MW(t ) reactor that would generate 16 - 18 MW(e)
Hope to see a link to this assertion soon.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Sinha, Banerjee and Kakodkar have all stated that the reactor in Indian designed and made, but that the Russians did consult on it as they did for the whole Arihant submarine. The reactor was revealed to the Indian press and to the 'world'. They're on record. There's no reason to disbelieve them.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Why not just go for SSN in the first place IMO main advantage of an SSK is they were cheap alternative to a nuclear submarine but Scorpene all said and done will be on par with Los Angles class SSNs in terms of cost.Cybaru wrote:Are there 1-2 MW(e) small reactors out there, that one could use as AIP ?
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
Unless you're a fan-boy....Varoon Shekhar wrote:. The reactor was revealed to the Indian press and to the 'world'. They're on record. There's no reason to disbelieve them.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
A small reactor just for charging the batteries ( to avoid surfacing for diesel engines to operate and be eliminated) while keeping the electric propulsion same on a kilo would be great. Liquid Na or mercury coolant
Disclaimer not a scientist who worked on bombs like a few posters here
Disclaimer not a scientist who worked on bombs like a few posters here
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
russia tried that same idea on a Kilo class and did not pursue it. no idea if it was technical issue or having proper SSN they saw no operational need for it.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
I dont have a link but check ex Admiral Arun Prakash write up on Arihant and INS Chakra , Indian designed reactor is under development it is a larger reactor of 190 MW(t) and will take 15 years to develop according to BARC , the one on Arihant class is of Russian origin.SaiK wrote:Okay, that is chaiwala enough about the Russian design origins.Austin wrote:The reactor for Arhiant is based on Russian design PWR reactor , its a 80 -90 MW(t ) reactor that would generate 16 - 18 MW(e)
Hope to see a link to this assertion soon.
If mods approve i can post the entire article from Arun Prakash since it give good insight into indian Nuclear submarine development and its nuances.
Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2
I am no nekaler saintist but I think the real problem with a "small" nuclear reactor is that beyond a point the weight of safety systems and shielding is so huge that having a bigger reactor makes more sense than a small one. No matter how small the reactor you still require lead and other shielding and thermal shielding, and pressures in hot tanks will be no less.
As it is I think (if I recall right) that the nuclear reactor in a nuke sub accounts for 25% of the displacement. Making a reactor much smaller does not reduce the shielding, insulation and safety systems weight much and it would seem a waste to have a sub where the propulsion is 50% of the weight.
Just a guess.
As it is I think (if I recall right) that the nuclear reactor in a nuke sub accounts for 25% of the displacement. Making a reactor much smaller does not reduce the shielding, insulation and safety systems weight much and it would seem a waste to have a sub where the propulsion is 50% of the weight.
Just a guess.