ATV and K15 missile - News & Discussion

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 01 Mar 2008 01:00

Unmanned and fixed underwater barges holding nuclear tipped missiles are open to attacks, and hence are a big security problem. Land-based silos are protected by ABMs atleast.

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 01 Mar 2008 01:41

k prasad wrote:
Dilbu wrote:Like they borrowed the grenade or explosive whatever that was mumbai blast evidence and 'misplaced' it. Once an Unkil always an Unkil. :D


When did this happen?? I have no idea about this..

First I submit my apologies for the OT post. But to answer K Prasad here goes : Rediff - Lessons from the Mumbai blasts - B Raman
(Copy Pasted relevant portion from the Article)
Immediately after the explosions, Prime Minister Rao accepted the advice of R&AW that we should invite the counter-terrorism experts of the US, UK and other Western countries to visit the spot and see the weapons and other evidence gathered by the police during the initial investigation. The detonators and timers were of American origin, the hand-grenades of Austrian design and some AK-47 rifles of Chinese-make. The evidence indicated the terrorists had got all this from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.

The idea was that if the Western counter-terrorism experts saw the evidence immediately after the explosions, they might go back and tell their political leadership they were convinced that the ISI was behind the explosions, even though they might not share their findings with us.

The US experts wanted to take a detonator and timer which had been recovered intact to the US for forensic examination and promised to return them after the examination. I agreed to it. A few days later, they gave an unsigned report that they were of American origin and were part of stock given to Pakistan during the Afghan war in the 1980s.

The report added this did not necessarily mean the terrorists got them from the ISI. It pointed out that in Pakistan there was a lot of leakage of government arms and ammunition to smugglers and expressed the view that the terrorists might have procured them from the smugglers.

When I asked them to return the detonator and the timer as promised by them they replied that their forensic experts had by mistake destroyed them. They did not apparently want to leave any clinching evidence against Pakistan in our hands. This was a bitter lesson to us that in matters concerning Pakistan one should not totally trust the US. They would do anything to ensure that no harm came to Pakistan.

When the US experts were visiting the spots in Mumbai a British journalist posted in New Delhi came to know from a source in the Mumbai police about their visit and the name of the hotel where they were staying. He rang them up and wanted to interview them. They strongly denied they were counter-terrorism experts, cut short their stay in India and went back to the US. They were apparently afraid if the terrorists came to suspect the US was helping India, they might target US nationals.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 01 Mar 2008 02:02

Rahul Shukla wrote:AOA!

So the idea is to drop real K-15 pantoons sprinkled within the dummy pantoon distribution?

1). They will be detected by satellite.
2). MPA's will decipher real ones from dummies.
3). Uncle's rig will come and steal (tow) away a couple of pantoons from 'international waters' for analysis.

Yindoos will be left crying chor, chor. However, uncle will say he didn't steal any K-15+Nuke+Pantoon but simply "borrowed without permission", with intention to give back sometime during the next 5 decades. :lol:


Why blame the unkil if our own dhoti is let down and the jewels shown :eek: So scenario# 3 is DOA(tm). If it is a real scenario, then there are other easier ways to steal the jewels.

Scenario#1, the farm will be detected by satellite. Not the contents. This is no different from having silos and some of those silos are empty.

Scenario#2, only radar imaging can solve which ones are real and which ones are dummy. And even that is difficult if some of the pontoons are real but empty!

Look at the brighter side, the silos are off the coast and away from population centers!

This is more like thinking out of the box. Even if ATV is ready, by the time it is operationalized, it will be a decade from now. Two more ATV needs to be ready and two more decades will be required from now for that. In the interim, this is one sure fire way of reducing the probability of 100% take out or improving the probability of a second strike.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 01 Mar 2008 02:06

rocky wrote:Unmanned and fixed underwater barges holding nuclear tipped missiles are open to attacks, and hence are a big security problem. Land-based silos are protected by ABMs atleast.


:?: :?: :?: :?:
What is the coast guard for?

50 km off the coast, an ABM battery cannot protect an underwater barge?
On the land, an ABM battery will be sitting atop a silo? Very near to silo? How far will be it from the silo?
On the land, what about rail or road mobile deterrence? Will there be a towed ABM behind it? :shock:

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 799
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Postby k prasad » 01 Mar 2008 02:11

thx biju... very interesting and incisive piece, as is always so with Mr. Raman. admins, sorry for the OT post.

Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Postby Naidu » 01 Mar 2008 02:38

BijuShet wrote:When I asked them to return the detonator and the timer as promised by them they replied that their forensic experts had by mistake destroyed them. They did not apparently want to leave any clinching evidence against Pakistan in our hands. This was a bitter lesson to us that in matters concerning Pakistan one should not totally trust the US. They would do anything to ensure that no harm came to Pakistan.
...
They were apparently afraid if the terrorists came to suspect the US was helping India, they might target US nationals.


I'm glad all this worked out exactly like the US hoped. Nobody in world, except SDRE whiners, suspects that Pakis are involved in terrorism. Also, till now the US has not been attacked by terrorists due their discrete activities like running away from pesky reporters, etc. :roll:

When will the dhotiwalas learn all these foreign policy tricks?

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 01 Mar 2008 02:42

The idea of using sunk pontoons as silos for Sagarika has some inherent disadvantages

1) These pontoons need to be stationed at 50 meters depth so that would limit how far in to the sea we can go as the oceans get progressively deeper farther from the shore.

2) Once sunk their locations need to be guarded with secrecy thus having manned pontoons would be difficult as they would need to be resupplied with fuel and rations etc and the periodic resupply would expose their position.

3) These pontoons would need to maintain a reliable communications link with the civilian powers to seek authorization for the use of the Sagarika to deliver the Pushp Kamal.

4) Using Coast Gaurd or any such mechanism to protect these assets will also give away their location not to mention that we would need a 24 hour security cover for these silos and the moment the CG asset steps away the lurkers will be hovering close by to get some sneak peaks.

5) Lurking subs will eventually figure out the pontoons position and may even be tempted to disable or who knows even steal one for a closer look inside our chaddi.

6) Costs associated with the maintainence of such crafts would be prohibitive as they would need too much infra support to be maintained as reliable leg of our N Triad.

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 01 Mar 2008 02:47

you are welcome K Prasadji. Also note that this article was published almost 5 years ago. Looks like not much has changed since then for US when it comes to dealing with Pakis.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 01 Mar 2008 03:21

BijuShet wrote:The idea of using sunk pontoons as silos for Sagarika has some inherent disadvantages

1) These pontoons need to be stationed at 50 meters depth so that would limit how far in to the sea we can go as the oceans get progressively deeper farther from the shore.

2) Once sunk their locations need to be guarded with secrecy thus having manned pontoons would be difficult as they would need to be resupplied with fuel and rations etc and the periodic resupply would expose their position.

3) These pontoons would need to maintain a reliable communications link with the civilian powers to seek authorization for the use of the Sagarika to deliver the Pushp Kamal.

4) Using Coast Gaurd or any such mechanism to protect these assets will also give away their location not to mention that we would need a 24 hour security cover for these silos and the moment the CG asset steps away the lurkers will be hovering close by to get some sneak peaks.

5) Lurking subs will eventually figure out the pontoons position and may even be tempted to disable or who knows even steal one for a closer look inside our chaddi.

6) Costs associated with the maintainence of such crafts would be prohibitive as they would need too much infra support to be maintained as reliable leg of our N Triad.


True, and how are they different from land based silos? Put it this way, they offer a viable alternative against stationary land based silos.

Again a true deterrence is in a completely mobile deterrence. Particularly, undersea mobile leg and yes in that sense the importance of ATV/acquiring Akula cannot be stressed less and we have made excellent progress there. Kudos to DRDO and its ancillary labs.

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Postby BijuShet » 01 Mar 2008 03:41

disha wrote:True, and how are they different from land based silos? Put it this way, they offer a viable alternative against stationary land based silos.

Again a true deterrence is in a completely mobile deterrence. Particularly, undersea mobile leg and yes in that sense the importance of ATV/acquiring Akula cannot be stressed less and we have made excellent progress there. Kudos to DRDO and its ancillary labs.


The difference between pontoons and land based silos is that for anyone to get physically close to a land based silo they would have to be inside Indian territory. Pontoons out in open waters is like planting a Rs 100 note (attached to a string in your hand) in the middle of the road and waiting for someone to notice and try to fetch it. You may be successful in yanking the string most times when someone tries to get to it but the other guy needs to get lucky once to pocket the Rs 100. Our territorial water end 12 miles from the coast. Our exclusive economic zone may extend 200 miles but the area between 12 miles and 200 miles from the coast is an open playground for most super powers. Beyond 200 miles it is international waters anyway so there is not much we can do if someone delibrately pokes around a pontoon placed that far out.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7405
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 01 Mar 2008 08:30

BijuShet wrote:
The difference between pontoons and land based silos is that for anyone to get physically close to a land based silo they would have to be inside Indian territory. Pontoons out in open waters is like planting a Rs 100 note (attached to a string in your hand) in the middle of the road and waiting for someone to notice and try to fetch it. You may be successful in yanking the string most times when someone tries to get to it but the other guy needs to get lucky once to pocket the Rs 100. Our territorial water end 12 miles from the coast. Our exclusive economic zone may extend 200 miles but the area between 12 miles and 200 miles from the coast is an open playground for most super powers. Beyond 200 miles it is international waters anyway so there is not much we can do if someone delibrately pokes around a pontoon placed that far out.


That is a very very loose statement, any unauthorized access into any country's exclusive economic zone is considered a violation of that country's territorial integrity. If we cannot even protect it, leave aside enforce it, we can as well abandon the pretense of having a navy, army and airforce. If we are so feeble, why blame unkil or others?

Anyway, forget pontoons. How are we protecting our interests in our EEZ? Our interests like oil and offshore oil drilling platforms? Do we abandon Bombay High? How about a JDAM sticking one of those munitions into those structures in Bombay High or in the platforms on KG basin some of which are actually 150 km away from the shore? What do we go about protecting them today? If we do not protect them, then are we not more vulnerable, somebody just has to take them out and put us in trouble. Heck, the ships plying oil to us are even more a sitting duck than those oil drilling platforms! And they operate outside the EEZ! Why the statement from the admiral about reaching from horn of africa to the indo-china sea? To protect turtles?

Sir, you can give all kind of analogies about 100 Rs. etc, but you have already lost the argument on that one. You are welcome for you riposte's but do not expect me to answer them.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Mar 2008 16:26

If the consensus is that the missile is 11m long then it would mean that th sub is variation of yasen 885 rather than charlie. Also that the weight would be empty 6500tons and submerged anything upto 9000tons. So the only explanation for 80mw refernence in India today article is that it is a mistake for 180mw reactor as the mistake was similar for 7m meter missile though the conensus on BR seems to be that it is 11m missile

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 02 Mar 2008 17:19

Raj Malhotra wrote:If the consensus is that the missile is 11m long then it would mean that th sub is variation of yasen 885 rather than charlie.


what makes you say it is like yasen class , when yasen is yet to hit waters .

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 02 Mar 2008 18:53

Remember the Karachi strike in '71 with the towed missile boats?

How about pontoons being towed into the area of interest when the time comes to strike (Assuming that we are talking of a missile with a limited range) When A3SL comes online (As also ATV) all this would be redundant.

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Postby Mihir.D » 02 Mar 2008 19:27

p_saggu wrote:Remember the Karachi strike in '71 with the towed missile boats?

How about pontoons being towed into the area of interest when the time comes to strike (Assuming that we are talking of a missile with a limited range) When A3SL comes online (As also ATV) all this would be redundant.


Won't the pontoon get detected when it is being dragged ..

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 02 Mar 2008 19:31

perhaps it can be subsurface all the time. Talk of a sea based TEL. Shoot n scoot... cheap and effective.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 02 Mar 2008 20:56

Biju
Your analysis are good but they belong in internal security or geopolitical thread. I do agree with Naidu also about our own incompetence. Many members and myself included have been saying this for long time, "We as a nation have less to fear from piglets, lizard, unkil or anyone else, it is our Jholawala, Dhotiwala, Topiwala that are the traitors".

JNU=Junk Nikamma University. Maybe someone can come up with more creative name.
JDT=Jholawala, Dhotiwala, Topiwala

I think there is a consensus on BRF biggest impediment to Bharat's Glory is JDT. As people we do bear some responsibility that we haven't voted a single party into majority in long time.

We as a nation always had the intelligence, talent to reach our goals only drawback had been Money (still an issue not terribly bad), Political Resolve, Killer instinct to go for kill and feast on it.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 02 Mar 2008 21:04

Maybe someone can come up with more creative name.


Ejaz Haidar's generic description will do

"The Necropolis of Learning"

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 02 Mar 2008 22:24

p_saggu wrote:Remember the Karachi strike in '71 with the towed missile boats?

How about pontoons being towed into the area of interest when the time comes to strike (Assuming that we are talking of a missile with a limited range) When A3SL comes online (As also ATV) all this would be redundant.


The Karachi strike incident you refer to was done with the boats fully powered during the ingress towards the harbour area and only on the egress from the harbour did one of the boats suffer a breakdown and required towing out of the area the next day. I doubt if that was a valid example of the survivability of any towed weapons platform at sea, even if you include the incompetence of the PAF who strafed their own Frigate the next day while looking for the missile boat! :rotfl: :shock:

Still, on a more serious note, you have to remember that sea based silos come with their own vulnerablities and advantages. The mobility argument does not hold since our road and rail mobile missiles are more mobile than these. to make matters worse, since this kind of a system is neither a submarine running far below the water or a land based weapon, it has the defensive vulnerabilities of both. It can be attacked by aircrafts, helicopters, submarines, ships and even nuclear tipped missiles. And you cannot have a surface or submarine battlegroup escorting each such silo for defense. Doing that will only expand the vulnerabilities to encompass the vessels and put a big bull's eye over them for a nuclear strike by the enemy, not to mention sucking away precious conventional assets. You also cannot protect them on the cheap side either.

At the same time it has neither the range to compete with the land based weapons, with ranges stuck much lower than the land based missiles even on a very low payload capability, nor does it have the discreetness of our land based missiles. To elaborate this, consider the fact that all our land based missiles are road and rail mobile, which means that they can be disguised anywhere from a discreet railway carriage at a random railway station in one of the world's largest railway network with no highly explicit identification features. The same sea based silos fails on all these aspects.

of course, if the idea is to take an ICBM range weapon and place it so far out at sea that its actually beyond the detection zones near the border of Pakistan (or China, assuming the bay of bengal), then the question rises on how you plan to maintain that kind of a deployment and whether the fiscal costs are worse than simply building a much larger force of readily available land based missiles. Not to mention the fact that developing such a deployment would actually overtake the time before which the ATV based weapon is deployed, rendering such an option a wasted effort.

-Vivek

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2008 10:20

So much bandwidth over an eager member who wanted to see the K15 deployed before its time.

:roll:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2008 22:10

I have been thinking about the discrepancy in total length between numerous press reports of K-15 test stating 6.5m total length and India Today article stating 11 m length.

Most likely the 6.5m is the pontoon launched development model and the 11m model will be the production model for deployment.

The 11m length would require a protrusion to the ATV and that would account for the drag which requires the vessel to be at full reactor power most of the time.


This shows that there was some gap in the total length and the vessel power requirments.

A length of 11m ie is ~ 33ft puts the K-15 in the IRBM class. Compare to Polaris and similar vehicles/vessels.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 04 Mar 2008 00:06

ramana wrote:I have been thinking about the discrepancy in total length between numerous press reports of K-15 test stating 6.5m total length and India Today article stating 11 m length.

Most likely the 6.5m is the pontoon launched development model and the 11m model will be the production model for deployment.

The 11m length would require a protrusion to the ATV and that would account for the drag which requires the vessel to be at full reactor power most of the time.


This shows that there was some gap in the total length and the vessel power requirments.

A length of 11m ie is ~ 33ft puts the K-15 in the IRBM class. Compare to Polaris and similar vehicles/vessels.

I have been thinking of same issue. My take is that cash strapped Indian SRDE systems are multi purpose in nature, thus 0.7m dia missile in 2 flavours, one comaflaging the other to keep others guessing. the 6.5m length is same pkg envelop footprint as BrahMos. BrahMos (being MTCR bla bla compliant) is self castrated to 300km range. But it is a priceless missile for anti-shipping (BM will not be a good design against advanced ships). So a 6.5m long K15 version will give the sub multi-role capabelity. And it rides with BrhaMos on many IN boats.

The 11m length K15 is for the boat that is custom built for A3-SL. Again multi-role/multi-target role for the boat will see a compliment of A3SL- and K15 for different customers. Will see if 11m imposes penantly on ATV design choice, as and when it is unvailed.

Comparision w/polaris is relavent in range, but in terms of diameter and mass polaris is a distinct neandhertal cousin of said Bhartiya missile.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Mar 2008 00:45

It may not be just funding. The UWL and vehicle concept has been demonstrated for. It could be due to the schedule of the total system.

When the AIIISL comes they may retube the boat and move on.

Using a dumb booster is a quick way to get the system going just as AII with the composite stages. No one could take it seriously but it did its job of proofing the system.

Polaris might be old but it did its work and is the standard to refer to.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 04 Mar 2008 15:18

Ramanna hit the nail on its proverbial head! There is nothing better than a true SSBM with ICBM and MIRVs.However,a barge can have a small propulsion unit with speeds of 5kts,enough to move itself if required.In certain unique offshore underwater situs (guess where),the barges can remain very difficult to detect.Dummies can easily be deployed using also a sprinkling of nuclear waste to deceive the ungodly! If you imagine a barge as being the missile compartment of an SSBM,without all the other approx. 8 compartments for the crew,sonar,torpedo compartment,nuclear plant,etc.etc.,you can see its virtues,though limited.To my mind,a useful complemet for our SSBMs,given that we cannot afford a huge underwater SSBM force like the US or Russia.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 04 Mar 2008 15:53

My thinking is if the barage concept was cheap and feasible , it would have been done by now.

I personally think this barage thing lacks mobility , robustness and stealth , in that it would be better to have a conventional submarine with SLBM.

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 04 Mar 2008 17:12

A remote underwater vehicle will do. Much like a UCAV. Not as expensive as a sub.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2008 19:30

No matter what, each barge needs a direct connection to fire the missile from it, right? A remote trigger cannot be relied on I would imagine. Which translates into a manned sub with proper coms.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2008 19:33

Austin wrote:My thinking is if the barage concept was cheap and feasible , it would have been done by now.

I personally think this barage thing lacks mobility , robustness and stealth , in that it would be better to have a conventional submarine with SLBM.


Anything other than a manned, redundant system is useless.

Even to fire a nuke missle you need verifiable redundancy.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 04 Mar 2008 20:41

I think that 6.5m is the cruise missile and 11m is SLBM. Even Brahmos is 8m, so I don't think that SDRE SLBM will be 6.5m


My guess is that in eighties Indian ATV was further development of Charlie class perhaps with VLS. In nineties it was overhauled and it became much heavier yasen severdinsk class submarine. A yasen class specifications are open to speculation but some sites talk about 12-15m dia submarine. Assuming this guess is based on the dia of the sub depending whether it is single or double hulled, it would mean that ATV if similar can house 11m SLBM.

We must remember that earlier SSBNs were in the speculated weight class of ATV i.e. 6000-6500 tons.

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 04 Mar 2008 20:54

The ATV size must have increased because DAE was not able to decrease the size of th reactor to that level.

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Postby Mihir.D » 04 Mar 2008 21:02

gopal.suri wrote:The ATV size must have increased because DAE was not able to decrease the size of th reactor to that level.


But the last word was we used a rusi reactor.

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 04 Mar 2008 21:06

Mihir.D wrote:
gopal.suri wrote:The ATV size must have increased because DAE was not able to decrease the size of th reactor to that level.


But the last word was we used a rusi reactor.


Yes, but after DAE gave up or is planning in future.

I am onlee speculationg.... A smaller reactor held up the sub for ages.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10093
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 04 Mar 2008 22:21

But the last word was we used a rusi reactor

But there was lot of debate on BRF regarding this since most felt that it was impossible for Russia to give away a Nuclear reactor and that they had only provided consultation....
Wonder which is true? :-?

Sri Harsha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:41
Contact:

Postby Sri Harsha » 05 Mar 2008 13:42

Russian’s who are making so much fuss to transfer the technology for T-90S and BrahMos. I do not think they could transfer reactor technology. I seriously doubt it.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 05 Mar 2008 22:36

Sri Harsha wrote:Russian’s who are making so much fuss to transfer the technology for T-90S and BrahMos. I do not think they could transfer reactor technology. I seriously doubt it.

Good one.

As an aside the Yindoo Injuns mind is so dhimmified that while renovating the backyard and sweating 20 days to dig the foundation trench he finds an ancient pot of gold coins, the Yindoo cant belive it and calls Panchayat to ask "who conspired to bury the gold coins in his backyard?".

Kudos to the Dhimmified and twisted Yindu mind :twisted: :twisted:

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 05 Mar 2008 23:09

Sri Harsha wrote:Russian’s who are making so much fuss to transfer the technology for T-90S and BrahMos. I do not think they could transfer reactor technology. I seriously doubt it.


probably we paid the right price? Money cannot get you everything but it sure can try!

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 06 Mar 2008 08:22

The ATV can be inspired from :-


Charlie class - will not fit the SLBM of 11m length

Charlie class with hump to fit the lenght of SLBM - unweildy design and why go for it?

Bigger Sub. I think Our Nar Rao in 1993-96 gave Russia a contract for two 1000MW reactors and a part of deal could have been to get designs for yasen 885, sub reactor and components for two ATV - yasen subs and their reactors.


This was also the time that lot of western websites started reporting some connection with ATV and yasen.

Russia refusal of technology for Igla, smerch, brahmos, T-90 etc is very recent and under Putin after rise of Crude Oil prices.

Can any member access latest Janes digests to give their estimate of yasen?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 06 Mar 2008 08:59

Dude the Yasen is not yet launched , its a SSN/SSGN and all information available on Yasen are pure pure speculation.

No one will ever transfer us their latest submarine technology , no matter how much you will be willing to pay.

And you expect Russia to transfer their yet to be launched and tested submarine for ATV ?

The ATV design from what I got is based on Akula-1 SSN , suitably modified for SLBM role .

But we will come to know the true story when the baby boomer touches water.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 06 Mar 2008 11:57

Russian’s who are making so much fuss to transfer the technology for T-90S and BrahMos. I do not think they could transfer reactor technology. I seriously doubt it.


There was no problem with reactor technology -it was to make it compact enough to fit the ATV hull and that is where the Russians chipped in with their vast experience of making all kind of maritime reactors like how to mange higher heat and neutron flux ,high pressure containment system ,incorporation of additional reserve buoyancy in the reactor zone and like -my guess only

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 06 Mar 2008 12:09

The nineties was an especially hard time for Russia. It was during this period that they had to share top of the line technology with nations with which it was safe for them to do so (MKI, Yakhont-Brahmos et.al)
The Yasen was already on the drawing board, and technology had evolved further from the Akula-I series.
Sure Russia didn't have the finances to build a Yasen then, Perhaps this design was shared with India or a MKIsed Akula to carry SSBNs was developed. Either way if the reactors came (There is a somewhat similar precedent in the cryogenic engines for the GSLV programme), they came as sealed units with not much tech sharing.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests