INS Arihant (ATV) Launch News and Discussion

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 16 Jul 2009 23:48

krishna_krishna wrote:It resembles victor III ,however I have a doubt SNaik.The artist's impression in india today showed a single seven blade skewed propeller however victor has three, one main and two supplemetary smaller ones.Check in the pic below.Would our ATV will be also of similar kind :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 704344.JPG

Of course ATV is going to have skewed propeller, Victor is a design of late 70s. Five of them were completed with tandem propellers, skewed propellers were available in late 80's (after 85) only.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 17 Jul 2009 00:08

Sanku wrote:Wiki says India has 4 backfires...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_bomber

India

* Indian Navy : 4

I think the question to ask now is the one Shankarosky raised -- where are we hiding them.

I believe it was grouped with Akula-2+Gorshkov package but the Russians were not keen to 'lease' them they wanted the IN to purchase them outright instead. That is where the story still holds today. Wiki is jumping the gun in my view.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Jul 2009 00:17

Gagan wrote:Naval Brahmos is yet to be tested. If INS Arihant has 650mm torpedo tubes, it can fire off the brahmos through those.

The name Arihant has its origins in the Jain religion.

The first thought when I heard Arihant was that inimitable publisher of IIT preparation books... Arihant Publications. I spent so much time with those monstrosities (as I'm sure many jingos here have as well), that one forgets taht it is actually a nice word.... no cribs though!! Excellent name!

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 17 Jul 2009 00:19

geeth wrote:>>>Three more or three including the one thats floating around ?

Arre bhai..don't get greedy!

For a country which hasn't have rudimentary experience in submarine building, I would say building three Nukes simultaneously is something more than it can chew...Now you want to exclude one which, to the best of my knowledge is not floating yet.

The deal probably is something like : they help in hull & reactor ; weapons is our problem

It takes a lot of time and painful effort and tons of help to do it from scratch. Needlless to say, worth the wait.

Total project sanctioned is for 5 ATVs; The first batch consists of 3 to be followed by 2. The first is now complete the Hull of second one is also complete at L&T shipyard at Hazira and is/or has already been towed to vizag. The work on the third hull has not yet commenced.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 Jul 2009 01:28

ToI Report on ATV

Extensive sea trials will, of course, have to follow after the first of the three approved ATVs, designed to carry a miniature 80MW pressurized water reactor (PWR)

"It will take a minimum of two years before the first 6,000-tonne ATV can become fully operational,"

6000 tonnes submerged or surfaced? 80MWth or 80MWe?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 01:29

The wiki page is already updated!
How does a comparable russian sub design matter in ATV's case? This is definitely a new design, the ATV design. It is a 6000 tons displacement vessel, which carries a VLS system and torpedo tubes / antiship missiles. The russians don't have a similar sub design incorporating a vls in this displacement now do they?

Incidentally the wiki page says:
1. 12 VLS tubes (each with 2.4 meter diameter) 12 to 36 x k15 SLBM (3 in each launch tube) (750 km @ 1000 kg) (2000 km @ 200 kg)
or
8 x Agni III (SLBM)(Under development)

2. Torpedoes: Six 21 inch (533mm) torpedo tubes. Mines. A total capacity (mines, torpedoes, and missiles) of 30 weapons.
3. Torpedoes and Mines

That is quite a lot of maal on a small boat. Even the indian navy surface combatants don't carry that kind of load!

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 17 Jul 2009 01:32

India set to launch nuclear-powered submarine
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 787167.cms

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 17 Jul 2009 01:51

How about Ari Jeet for the second ATV. We just want to win, dont want to kill the enemy you see we are peaceful people onleee

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 17 Jul 2009 02:18

"The russians don't have a similar sub design incorporating a vls in this displacement now do they?"

Please check the following video of Victor III class submarine it shows a vls capability on them,which was one of the reason for comparison it is also on the same tonnage, in addition to other design similarities, although we could have tweaked it to suite our needs but definitely it is not from scratch :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqx1cimz ... re=related

I wish i could translate russian in the video

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 17 Jul 2009 02:24

China news agency, Beijing, July 9 (Chen Yiqun) - India's first nuclear-powered submarine will be made at the end of the opening, which will allow India into one of the world have the capacity to produce a few nuclear submarines in the world.

INS Chakra "Indian Express" reported that on the 8th, the submarine was named INS Chakra, is based on the country's "advanced technology warship," planned for construction, cost 2.9 billion U.S. dollars. t was originally scheduled for the July 26 nuclear submarine into the water changed after the end of this month in India, Andhra拉邦维扎Putnam加帕launched a naval base.

INS Chakra The report quoted senior government officials as saying that India's military nuclear energy as a "trinity" of part of the plan, submarine INS Chakra is equipped with medium-range ballistic missiles have been brought in the country's east coast two tests.

According to the British "Financial Times" reported on the 8th, senior officials in India said that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 26 will go to Andhra拉邦维扎Putnam加帕naval base in the nuclear submarine to inspect the water before the test.

"Financial Times" said that the Indian Navy keen to maintain its routes in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea on the authority of the Government of India will enable the submarine at sea to develop a nuclear strike capability. In addition, the Indian government is putting in a lot of funding for military transformation. Ministry of Finance in the state budget this week will be a 25 percent increase in military spending.

Refers to the nuclear reactor nuclear power sources designed for submarines, as a strategic strike force, nuclear submarines could be equipped with nuclear warheads of ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. 常”。 Recognized in the world's nuclear countries, to the construction of nuclear submarines are still only "five permanent members of the Security Council."

It is reported that in 1988, the Indian government has leased the name of the training received from the Soviet Union CI level (67 0-based) nuclear attack submarines, three-year right to use specialized personnel for the operation and construction of nuclear submarine research study. However, due to the heart of nuclear submarines - the light-water reactor could not break through the development of long-term, India was in 1998 declared a moratorium on nuclear research program in order to wait for "nuclear reactors with advanced nuclear submarines," to make progress. In 2004, the Indian Navy to lea

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 03:28

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 26 will go to Andhra拉邦维扎Putnam加帕naval base in the nuclear submarine to inspect the water before the test.

The chinese translation is a killer

and these chinese are as bad as their paki brothers. Can't even get the name of the port correct.

krishna_krishna wrote:Please check the following video of Victor III class submarine it shows a vls capability on them

No it does not.
It shows the VLS capability of American subs which the viktor class is out to hunt. The viktor class were hunter killers, and had land attack / anti ship attack capability with their Type 88R/SS-N-16 Stallion or 84RN/SS-N-15 Starfish missiles each with a 20 or a 200 KT nuclear warhead. These were torpedo tube launched on the Viktor class subs.
They also fired the Shkval rocket torpedoes.

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 17 Jul 2009 05:28

TOI's news has been posted in this thread already - but thier online edition had this small pic...

News source

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Jul 2009 06:10

Thanks for peope who liked the Sagrika/Shouya article.

Baljeet wrote:
vina wrote:Arun_S is awesome. His article says, 12 launch tubes and Missile Firing depth of 50 meters . Very well researched article, lot of details. Also included is a photo of ATV launch tube with the tell tale "separator" plates welded at around 120 angle and ring adapter for Sagarika. Check it out Sagarika/Shaurya
Vina
It is a great article. As he said, Sagarika can be launched from moving sub at depth of 50m-- it took Unkil long time to perfect that technique even after deploying their first SSBN in 1955. Russians could not do it till later. It seems like if we have 3 ATV's with sagarika loaded in few years we will be ahead of game. Not sure how many are defined as required but my guess would be atleast 8-10.

Vina/Baljeet: I would have loved to put this on BR website but for the pain in writing it on HTML and reorganizing the website. With lots of help we are moving the Missile section to a CMS and that will help me maintain the site within limited time available due to heavy work load.

ramana wrote:IIT Delhi should be proud of its alumni.

I onlee a small Vishwakarma doing 2 bit service to Matra Bhoomi.
In converse I am proud to have graduated from a collage named after the great freedom fighter and nationalist Maha-mahim shri Madan Mohan Malaviya, IIT-D was rock(et)ing experience.

Thanks.

To me the vital specs of ATV will be knowing the diameter, weight, reactor power, and its quietness.

OTOH, IMVHO ATV is a useless toy because it has been castrated by lack of a proven lightweight Thermo Nuclear payload. There are other known Maha-mahims in Indian security circles that believe in the same. In current environment, the only way to mitigate that is to make do with the lemon and make lemonade with credible TN testing and validation by making and using high energy Laser Inertial Confinement facilities with two independent teams of physicists.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2009 07:17

the drawings are not to scale. the towed sonar housing is smaller than the sail.

the 1st Ru SSN class with VL tubes for SLCM is Sverodbinsk.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 08:30

Arun Boss
The things you are asking are sought after by ISI, Unkil, Dragon. But this is the aspect I like about our babus they are master liars, they will lie to your face with grin. Boss you have company there on people who are doing their two bit to help their beloved nation bharat. I tried to put few post on possible new terror strike some Moderator deleted them go figure why...thankfully my post in Intel section was left intact and I want to thank the MODERATORS for that.

I try to put some things that are in public domain. Having a hard time doing it. Work load just doesn't lit up, long hours spent on analyzing sometimes total crap gets to you.

I hope our boomer makes us proud. I have a question for you, in your article you said, Sagarika has .74 m diameter, the launcher diameter is 2.2 or something like that. The way I read your information is, we have developed the capability to launch three sagarika simultaneously from one launcher. If it is so, we may have done something incredible.
if you would like to talk offline
please emai me
dahiyab AT gmail

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 17 Jul 2009 09:40

>>>Total project sanctioned is for 5 ATVs;

Yeah, but may not be same specs

Himanshu · Post by **Himanshu** » 17 Jul 2009 11:16

ATV's official name 'INS Arihant'

From livefist http://livefist.blogspot.com/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2009 13:38

the akulas we know presumbably doesnt have a spherical bow sonar
as the tubes are directly in front. maybe the newest akulas like Nerpa and certainly Sverodbinsk will have it.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 17 Jul 2009 14:03

Yeah, but may not be same specs

they will Def not be the same. the first 2 will be the same spec. (i.e SSGN) the next three will be SSBNs and could well be of a larger dimension.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jul 2009 14:23

4 VLS tubes carrying 3 missiles in each

I have been scratching my head on that part a bit . While you get flexibility in deciding your load of A3 vs K-15 and choose the appropriate missile for target and also has greater reliability (rather than mounting 3X war heads in missile and possibly losing all three if there is a snafu, you distribute it as X warheads in 3 missiles and thus are reasonably assured of getting atleast a few on target , even if one missile has a snafu).

On the other hand, once the VLS hatch is opened, will have to fire 3 missiles ?. Can you opt to fire just one missile out of 3 and close the hatch again?. From the photo Arun_S posted, it does not seem to be 3 individual tubes within, but there seem to be lightening holes cut out of the steel walls that separate the individual missiles. So even if you fire one missile, water will flood the entire VLS tube and I doubt you can simply close the hatch again and continue sailing. Will the missiles be able to work reliably if they are soaked in water for extended periods of time before you have to fire them again ?.

I guess that firing all 3 in one tube is the downside of this current design.

Err. But wait. Isn't the Shurya a canisterized missile ?. If the cunning Yindoos have shown only the photo to confuse people. If the K-15 is canisterized , just like the Shuarya and the entire canister is lowered through the opening ? Yes sir, that will work. If once a particular missile is fired, even if the entire VLS tube fills, the missile will be safe inside the water tight canister right and it will be safe to be be fired , even if it spends extended periods if the canister is dunked in water, next time the hatch is opened and the missile needs to be fired again!. Very Chankian onree 'em Yindoos.

A good engineering solution, rather than the "film" like membrane cover in other subs that cover the top and which the missiles punch through when launched and possibly need to keep the pressure in the VLS at the missile firing depth pressure to make sure the membrane doesn't break when the VLS hatch is opened. No need for all that "lafda" here. Just open and close hatches at will..

I am inclined to speculate that the A3SL is probably canisterized as well, just like Shuarya .. (it has to work in a similarly designed "adapter") after all!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2009 14:28

ofcourse it will be containerized. even the full-bore SLBMs like M51 rip apart a flower petal shaped 'seal' as they are pushed up by the gas generator.

the three holes are just containers to hold the sealed tubes.

however one has to admit pontoon launch was only a stationary launch
and a moving VL launch from submerged body is something we havent tried yet.

it has to be moving for safety - no sub wants a 10t missile falling back on them if it misfires.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 18:37

K-15 / Sagarika is cannistarized in a fibre glass container. Even if the VLS tube is opened, and the tubes fill with sea-water, the missiles themselves are in their canister.

If only one is needed to be fired, this is done, the VLS hatch is closed and water is pumped out of the VLS tube.

The remaining two missiles are checked with the crew going into the VLS tube via hatches.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 17 Jul 2009 18:40

INS Arihant graphic rip in TOI - Livefist

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 18:59

The difference in the two designs is the absence of the horizontal stabilizers on the conning tower in the TOI graphic. Sandeep unnithan's graphic had horz stabilizers on the conning tower.

My version:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2009 19:41

point to ponder - both the articles say its onlee a 80MW reactor while people here have been claiming 150MW and calculating speeds based on that.

only one party can be right.

Akula has 190MW reactor. I was mistaken about one thing - the towed sonar
housing really is huge and tall...as tall as the conning tower.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... akula4.jpg

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jul 2009 19:54

Singha wrote:point to ponder - both the articles say its onlee a 80MW reactor while people here have been claiming 150MW and calculating speeds based on that.

only one party can be right.

Akula has 190MW reactor. I was mistaken about one thing - the towed sonar
housing really is huge and tall...as tall as the conning tower.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... akula4.jpg

Singhaji. Discount the TOI (let's) account. It is a sheer rip off from Sandeep Unnithan's article, including the graphic. Only thing is that the TOI let duffers forgot to copy the fore planes in the sail . Totally shameless.

Sandeep Unnithan might be right about the reactor of 80MW, along with maybe the 4 launch tubes. If that is the case, the displacement will fall to 5000 tons or so submerged and no Agni III capability for now, but ship optimized for Sagarkia only. 26 knot top speed max underwaterwould still hold if 80MW thermal.

However, I doubt that very much. The ATV would have been designed for Agni III SL capability in place of 3 Sagarikas, I still think there will be a small hump /raised area behind the sail (not very prominent), or the sail itself might be on the top of a platform above the ciruclar part of the hull, and I still think the reactor would be sized at around 150MW Thermal. And I speculte that there will be 12 VLS tubes in total.Doesnt make sense to have a boomer with A3SL level capability with just 4 missiles!. You would put around 12 I think, for one boat to inflict "unacceptable" damage to a vast country like China for MAD. Let us wait and see for pics to be released when the boat is launched.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 17 Jul 2009 20:05

4 Agni-3 SL appears to be woefully inadequate. It's OK if Arihant would be a one off testbad case with the next version carrying atleast 12 rounds.

4 is not enough.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 20:25

4 agni 3's mean 12 mirved weapons (If india ever gets around to deploying a TN warhead) or 4 x 200 kt FBF warheads with reduced range of the missile.

The first ATV seems to be more of an attack sub with some ballistic missile capability, a sort of a multirole nuclear sub. This was expected, India can't built a dozen subs and dedicate half of them to be pure boomers and the other half to be hunter killers.

What will be of interest will be the torpedos and the hunter killer aspect of this boat. That large towed sonar is meant for a hunter killer role, not for a role as a boomer.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2009 20:37

those VL tubes could presumably deploy a shitload of sea mines too if we design mines to be deployed like that. or some big daddy VL torpedoes of A3 SL size
with a range of 200km @ 60knots

feature a conventional warhead of raw venom rated at 3 tons of HE.

enuf to break the back of any ship on earth - past , present or future.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 17 Jul 2009 21:26

TS Subramaniam at the Hindu has consistently maintained that the ATV reactor is ideed 100MWe.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jul 2009 21:28

some big daddy VL torpedoes of A3 SL size
with a range of 200km @ 60knots feature a conventional warhead of raw venom rated at 3 tons of HE.

interesting concept !

the ASW klub giving you ideas ?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Jul 2009 21:47

Gagan wrote:4 agni 3's mean 12 mirved weapons (If india ever gets around to deploying a TN warhead) or 4 x 200 kt FBF warheads with reduced range of the missile.

The first ATV seems to be more of an attack sub with some ballistic missile capability, a sort of a multirole nuclear sub. This was expected, India can't built a dozen subs and dedicate half of them to be pure boomers and the other half to be hunter killers.

What will be of interest will be the torpedos and the hunter killer aspect of this boat. That large towed sonar is meant for a hunter killer role, not for a role as a boomer.

IMVHO, when Arihant is unvailed it will show that it can carry only 4 tubes to carry either 4 Agni-3SL or 12 Sagarika (K15).

Now one can appreciate and thank R.Chidambraum's vintage fizzle Thermo-nuclear Bum for the callosal blunder of making the ATV an expensive but largely useless vehicle for strategic warfare.

The 12 warheads on short legged Sagarika will only deter the pig nation that does not require submarine based deterrence. Yet the few midget yield payload of the 4 Agni's on board with longer legs does not deter the nation(s) that do require submarine based deterrence.

As the fathers of ATV/Arihant's will tell you the small sized ATV will be able to do its strategic job only when the 4 Agni-3SL each carry 8-10 high yield (~200 kt) light weight warheads (32-40 warheads of 200kt per submarine) . That is only possible if India has credible thermo-nuclear warheads, which it does NOT, thanks to Pok-II blunder by BARC's high priest R.Chidambrum, and the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Castration(typo error, pls read Castration as Cooperation, and Civil as strategic).

IMHO right now Arihant can carry only 12 FBF warheads of 150kt (range 5,500Km), or 48 FBF of 17 kt per submarine. Compare to ~40 TN warheads (200kt) per submarine (at twice the range of 3x FBF warhead configuration due to SUM stage), one will have to now multiply the Arihant fleet size by 4 times to be able to carry the originally planned navel deterrent. I hope one can see why ATV is a less-use toy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2009 21:59

Anabhaya wrote:TS Subramaniam at the Hindu has consistently maintained that the ATV reactor is ideed 100MWe.

Impossible , it would be 100 MW(t) not (e)

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 17 Jul 2009 22:11

Guys,in this forum all these years i have seen people talking about DRDO ,Indian Navy ,dead investment etc etc and now people talking about limited capability.
Although i will not talk much on the capability,but guys i have seen the SBC and the passion the guys are showing in this system to go into the water.Atleast let us appreciate this and more so much of the work has been done by our own companies for which we should be proud of.

People at SBC work 24X7 and believe their generals fire like anything and to be safe work is getting done now. One more point you should know we are doing this for the first time and not that Russia has given everything off the shelf to us but in fact 80% of the engineering has been done here.

It is just the beginning,just watch how the next series of subs come and i am quiet sure you guys will really be surprised on its capability.what papers may not be always right unless you know the fact.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 22:22

Arun saar,
What warheads and ranges are you recommending for the K-15?

This being for the Agni 3

Arun_S wrote:right now Arihant can carry only 12 FBF warheads of 150kt (range 5,500Km), or 48 FBF of 17 kt per submarine

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Jul 2009 22:46

Gagan: Pls see the "Figure 7: Range versus RV payload" in this article Sagarika/Shaurya

650Km for the 150kt FBF warhead and ~1800 Km for the 17kt FBF.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 17 Jul 2009 23:06

Arun sir how many times you have seen a Nuksub in action................ie destroying a city or target with long range missile? Never !!! It may be expensive toy..................but of huge stratigic importance.Imagine lone ATV waiting in yellow sea. You do not need 5000 km missile. Enemy has to know that Nuksub is there. It is a good start. It is like complaining about lack of broadband in village where....................which was connected to electricity yesterday.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jul 2009 23:13

rsingh ji, for the moment, an IN sub operating on the other side of mallacca straits is nearly impossible. it will have to be the 4000/5000 km shots for us to be confident.

arun saar, what is th current status of agni-3SL ? any tentative timeframe ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Jul 2009 23:20

What will be the distance to go around Indonesia to reach the S China sea or pacific? How long will such a journey take for a sub?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Jul 2009 00:00

rsingh wrote:Arun sir how many times you have seen a Nuksub in action................ie destroying a city or target with long range missile? Never !!! It may be expensive toy..................but of huge stratigic importance.Imagine lone ATV waiting in yellow sea. You do not need 5000 km missile. Enemy has to know that Nuksub is there. It is a good start. It is like complaining about lack of broadband in village where....................which was connected to electricity yesterday.

The answer in the form of a rhetorical question is, 'If ANY Indian had even once seen "a Nuksub in action................ie destroying a city or target with long range missile?",'

But given that no such qualified Indian exist to meet your criteria, that did not disqualify the Indian strategic thinkers and Viswakarmas from developing Agni-2, 3, Shourya, Shakti-2 or even Shakti-1 (aka Chidambram vintage fizzle Thermonuclear BUM).