Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby yensoy » 21 Dec 2017 10:23

Singha wrote:i have a basic question - why do we need SLBMs to deter Cheen? would not a fleet of 100 road mobile A5 and follow ons be enough , backed by a good IRBM inventory? russia for instance puts great store by its land based fleet incl mobile, train and even the fixed SS18/Sarmat. these will be far cheaper as we pay for the missile and a truck, not a huge submarine to cart the missiles around. I could drive that TELAR, read the instruction manual and fire that thing off with a week of training


My understanding is that deterrence relies on you not firing the missile, rather than firing it. The threat that your enemy has something underhand, hidden from plain view, and capable of annihilating you is what makes deterrence work. It is an elaborate game of bluff and submarines are the most effective at stealth and deception, not a bunch of TELs which can be monitored from satellites and easily liquidated with some missiles.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2017 10:54

ArjunPandit wrote:Russia has the following advantages for land based deterrent
1. huge land mass
2. little inhabitation
3. very few moles, which can be made to disappear easily
we do not have any such luxury


good point. siberia alone seems 5x the size of india, with barely a few cities in the south along the railroads ...

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9641
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Dec 2017 12:11

it is better to have all options, monitoring all TEL via Satellite is very tough, India is blessed with lots of people and hence structures and Good Granite mountains. It is even better to have SLBM's in addition to the above. So the enemy thinks a First strike will inevitably bring a 2nd strike which will annihilate his country and there are surplus weapons to deter others. Basically the enemy(and all his well wisher Allies) must think your deterrence is soo numerous that a first strike will definitely mean destruction of his and his family and country. Unlike many here whoa re satisfied with having deterrence with a few cities, I think we must have the ability to end human life in every major city and village in Pakistan and China. This will take years but only when numbers appear they will take us seriously.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 21 Dec 2017 13:36

The problem with land based missiles silos or mobile, is that they attract N-devastation across the country.
Sub launched missiles give one the insurance against first strike threatening utter devastation of the enemy's landmass.It is not impossible that we could eventually afford and build 8- 12 SSBNs, which could carry upto a mknimum of 200+ warheads, including MIRVs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2017 14:16

well if someone is going for a first strike, they will strike at our cities, not at isolated missile units.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3392
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby hnair » 21 Dec 2017 14:31

Probably the Aridhaman was being worked on for extra plugs or an uprated reactor with tweaks. But then before the prep work got done, Doklam and Kim's whims happened and the Arighat was speeded up with original specs. This is a seriously black project and we all are unhappy at the blackness :D

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 21 Dec 2017 14:42

I would prefer castrating my enemy's nuke capability first.Once that has been achieved,the cities would be sitting ducks. It would also give the enemy a lesser capability to destroy our cities.The enemy can even be brought to heel and sign on whatever we demand. In the case of Pak,we need to plan for the assimilation of Pak today into the India of yesterday in the future. It would be beyond our financial capacity to rebuild a country/landmass the size of Pak.

Here's a piece from Bus. Line on the need for continued Indo-Ru N-sub cooperation.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... 996987.ece

Russia matters to our submarine plans
YOGESH JOSHI

The country’s technological assistance has immensely helped India’s indigenous nuclear submarine programme

In early November, a Russian news website claimed that the Indian Navy allowed a US technical team to inspect the Russian Akula-Class nuclear submarine loaned to India in 2012. Although the report turned out to be false, the issue raised eyebrows in strategic circles for two reasons. First, it brought into focus Indo-Russian cooperation in the domain of nuclear submarines.

India is the only country in the world to have operated a nuclear submarine on loan from a nuclear-weapon state, and Russia is the only such state to have leased one. The history of their cooperation on nuclear submarines has, however, been shrouded in secrecy. Second, it highlighted potential strains in Indo-Russian defence ties against the backdrop of New Delhi’s growing strategic closeness with Washington.

Even when Russia remains India’s largest defence supplier, New Delhi has increasingly looked toward the US for top-of-the-line defence equipment including attack helicopters, artillery guns, and advanced transport aircrafts. More worrying for Moscow is the recent emphasis on technical cooperation between the two sides in joint production of defence equipment. In the current environment of distrust between the US and Russia since the Ukraine crisis, Moscow is increasingly wary of US-India defence cooperation lest it compromise existing Russian defence technology in Indian hands.

Old ties
Moscow first loaned India a nuclear submarine in January 1988 during the era of the Soviet Union, which was not only India’s strategic partner during the Cold War but also its most important source of military equipment, especially for the Indian Navy. Between 1964 — when Moscow first started supplying naval equipment to India — and 1987, 70 per cent of the Indian Navy’s inventory came from the Soviet Union. Though Soviet Admiral Sergey Gorshkov had reportedly suggested supplying nuclear submarines to the Indian Navy in the late 1960s, the Soviets first agreed to lease a nuclear submarine to India during Marshall Nikolai Ogarkov’s visit to New Delhi in March 1981. Both sides subsequently also reached an understanding on assistance to India’s indigenous nuclear submarine programme.

As Vice-Admiral Mihir Kumar Roy reminisced later, this was the beginning of Project-S (the codename for India’s nuclear submarines). Moscow also agreed to train Indian naval personnel and help expand the Visakhapatnam naval dockyard for nuclear submarine operations.

In October 1986, the Soviet Politburo confirmed the lease of a submarine. However, there were voices of resistance. An internal memorandum circulated by some politburo members in November 1986 pleaded with President Gorbachev to cancel the lease on grounds that it would unleash a nuclear arms race in the Indian Ocean, create a perception of Soviet compromise with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and harm the prospects of creating a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean.

The memo also expressed fears that “in the process of the use of the nuclear submarine a succession of technical data about the boat’s systems, and also partially about the external parameters of the benchmark (bazovoy) of the nuclear power plant for our nuclear submarines will fall into the American hands.”

Gorbachev did not heed these voices and the transfer was officially completed in December 1987. However, a special service group (SSG) of the Soviet Navy accompanied the Soviet nuclear submarine K-43 — rechristened INS Chakra by the Indian Navy — when it sailed for Visakhapatnam from Vladivostok in January 1988.

The SSG’s mandate was not only to help with the smooth operations of the boat but also to ensure that no technical parameters were leaked during the period of the lease. That the Visakhapatnam naval base was completely out of bounds to Western navies also helped assuage Soviet fears. In fact, during the Cold War, a division existed between the Eastern and the Western command of the Indian Navy, with the Eastern Command primarily dealing with equipment supplied by Moscow.

Moreover, the Indian Navy maintained strict controls over access to the boat even for its own senior commanders.

Tilting towards the US?
If Moscow feared its defence equipment being compromised in Indian hands during the Cold War, current circumstances accentuate these concerns. From being an exclusive preserve of the Russian defence industry, the Indian Navy is increasingly looking forward to American hardware.

For example, Russian Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance aircrafts have been replaced by Boeing’s P-8 I Poseidon aircrafts of the same type, and India is seeking US technology for its new aircraft carriers. India conducts its most high-profile naval exercises — the Malabar series — with the US Navy, with an emphasis on joint operations. The sea change in India-US naval relations is evident in the fact that in 2015, US defence Secretary Ashton Carter visited the Visakhapatnam naval base, which was considered a Soviet outpost for much of the Cold War.

Yet, it would be erroneous to assume that India will give short shrift to Russian concerns. On the contrary, India acquiesced in a Russian naval group accompanying the Akula-class nuclear submarine loaned to India in 2012 and the same will be true when India next borrows a boat, negotiations for which are currently underway. Indian naval strategists appreciate the strategic utility of Russian cooperation, even when these boats are largely meant for training and come with restrictions on their use for offensive purposes.

But most importantly, Russia’s technological assistance to India’s indigenous nuclear submarine programme has been immense. India’s first nuclear submarine, the INS Arihant, would have been a pipedream without Moscow’s assistance, which remains critical for the next generation of India’s nuclear submarines as well.

Given this history of cooperation and India’s need for continued Russian assistance, it is hard to imagine that New Delhi would shoot itself in the foot by revealing Russian secrets to its American counterparts. In fact, the reluctance among the Indian defence services (including the Navy) on signing the Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement with the US partly emanates from such concerns.

Moreover, it is impossible for the Navy to do so without prior consultations with Moscow as the latter’s naval personnel are always on-board its leased nuclear submarines. Finally, even though some Indian strategists now argue for US technical cooperation in naval nuclear propulsion, New Delhi knows it will be difficult for the US to overcome its reluctance to share military nuclear technology with India. For the sake of some future possibility of cooperation with the US, India cannot afford to abandon its most important defence partner.

The writer is a Nuclear Security Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford. This article is by special arrangement with the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania

(This article was published on December 19, 2017)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5203
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rakesh » 17 Mar 2018 01:04

X-Post from the Indian Navy - News & Discussion thread...

Second, third Scorpene Class submarines undergoing sea trials, says Indian Navy official
http://www.financialexpress.com/defence ... l/1101676/

To a question on the accident suffered by INS Chakra, Indian Navy’s only nuclear-powered submarine, he said, “85 per cent of the reports on it was incorrect.”

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Vivek K » 17 Mar 2018 01:22

Also incorrect "India's only nuclear-powered submarine".

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35640
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby SaiK » 27 Mar 2018 21:55


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21563
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Austin » 01 Apr 2018 20:48


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 01 Apr 2018 23:39

There is a point of intersection when the lines of conventional and nuclear boat sizes converge, with one climbing and the other descending in optimum capability.
As a conventional boat gets loaded with extra weapons, sensors and manpower, along with an AIP system, it demands a more powerful plant and associated machinery, batteries, etc.The greater the size, the greater plant reqs.This also dramatically inflates costs to the point where t-for-t an N-boat is decidely more attractive.Smaller conventional AIP boats in our littorals esp. the shallower waters of the Arabian Sea are better boats for HUK subs, which can also be obtained in larger number than a conventional super-sub.

The limitations of a conventional boat, even those with AIP, is why N- powered boats are the ones preferred by the USN, solidly building upon the huge foundation of the sub fleet that Adm. Rickover established .Conventional boats simply cannot compete with N-boats for full spectrum blue water ops.A nuclear sub has unlimited range, is much faster- at least 10kts , than a conv. boat and can carry a larger and more varied weaponload.Therefore, with China in mind, the IN should plan for a larger fleet of SSGN/SSN subs, around 10 in total, some required to tail enemy "boomers", with around 18-24 conv.boats of 2-3 types, some which can carry BMos too.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5203
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rakesh » 25 Apr 2018 22:25

Thales looking at role in India’s nuclear submarine project
https://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/th ... -1.2209632

India is expected to spend close to $300 billion in the next five years in procuring defence equipment and almost all major global defence firms are eyeing a slice of it

French defence company Thales has said it is working on doubling its footprint in India by expanding its overall product portfolios with a major focus on India’s ambitious project to build a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Senior Executive Vice-President (International Development) Pascale Sourisse said Thales was in particular looking at supplying key components such as sonars for India’s nuclear-powered and other submarines. India has been working on a secret project to build six nuclear-powered attack submarines which are expected to boost the Navy’s overall strike capabilities.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 26 Apr 2018 09:36

Take a look at Malachite's new Husky SSGN which in the next decade will replace construction of the Yasen class.
It is supposed to be smaller and much cheaper to build too, with improved capabilities.Looks like an evolved Akula .

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby barath_s » 26 Apr 2018 14:22

Philip wrote:There is a point of intersection when the lines of conventional and nuclear boat sizes converge, with one climbing and the other descending in optimum capability..


The Australian Shortfin Barracuda is expected to be ~4000 t submerged, though the WW2 I-400 class submarines were larger at ~6560 t. Range is a big factor. The French Rubis class nuclear powered submarines, by contrast are 2600 t submerged. Boomers, by contrast tend to be much larger, due to the need to carry huge SLBMs

Key questions to be asked is role, range and doctrine, as well as cost and capability.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby barath_s » 26 Apr 2018 14:36

Singha wrote:i have a basic question - why do we need SLBMs to deter Cheen? would not a fleet of 100 road mobile A5 and follow ons be enough , backed by a good IRBM inventory? russia for instance puts great store by its land based fleet incl mobile, train and even the fixed SS18/Sarmat. these will be far cheaper as we pay for the missile and a truck, not a huge submarine to cart the missiles around.


SSBN Submarines offer second strike capability like no other.

In other words, even if an enemy pro-actively attacks and takes out Indian cities and Indian nuclear strike etc., the SSBN underwater can evade it and make the enemy pay a hefty price (in terms of cities). Road or rail mobility or hardened silos simply dont offer that level of survivability that a stealthy/quiet SSBN can.

This ensures MAD and also, paradoxically reduces the rush to attack or 'lose it' considerations that also have a huge false alarm situation.

An SSBN is a strategic weapon, it is not meant to exact a penalty for IOR transgressions or anything of the sort. (This would be disproportionate/unjudged and could also cause overreaction/false alarm by an enemy thinking a conventional SLBM is a nuclear one)

Stealth bombers are the closest analogue but the capability and investment required are huge; and the airfields are still vulnerable.

SSBN requires silence for stealthiness. To counter a SSBN, you try for ASW including SSN,, ASW surface and planes or SOSUS and try to get it once launch preparation is detected (a tough task). That's where an SSN requires high sprint speed - to counter that and get to it..

A SSBN does not require high speed (which is why the *only* 83 Mw criticism of Arihant is mostly misplaced). High speed can be nice, for example to make sure that the search circle is large. But silence is more powerful.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 26 Apr 2018 18:48

The IN apart from it 5 or 6 dedicated SSBNs require a fleet of SSGNs like the Akulas which have a large weaponload and can also carry N-tipped cruise missiles to augment and support the strat. deterrent in a nuclear crisis, increasing the number of platforms which could deliver a second strike.

The IN in my opinion would require at least 12-16 N-boats of a mix of SSBN and SSGN/SSNs. In addition, at least 24 conventional subs of 3 classes , HUKs and multi-role SSGs are required to meet our ops. in the IOR and Indo- Pacific theatre.Remember that China will possess at least double that amt (36) and Pak will have at least 8 -12
SSGs.

The conv. AIP SSGs could have 8 missile silos apart from the std. 18 torpedo, missile, mine mix. We will have 6 Scorpene, as mentioned another 6 to 8 German U-boats replacing the older 209s and Kilos replaced progressively by a new Ru conv.AIP boat.

Interestingly, the US has just inducted the super- secret Sea Hunter drone, which is an unmanned vessel with two outriggers capable of 27kts and totally classified capability.The drone can loiter for months tracking enemy subs, passing on data to other platforms for co-operative engagement.It may be armed at a later date with integral ASW weaponry.The USN expects to field dozens in the future which cost only $20M a pop! A paradigm shift in ASW warfare.The IN which has to sanitise numerous choke points, monitor the waters of our island territories and huge coastline would do well to invest in similar such vessels which cost a fraction of even a corvette!

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Haridas » 26 Apr 2018 19:41

^^^ already planned and execution in progress .
Akula lease deal was always priced as if bought new (leasing at the price of a new + cash payback in lieu of other cooperation)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 26 Apr 2018 22:14

usn has taken the columbia replacement as a larger virginia class, with 4 modular plugs each hosting 4 UVLS tubes - ranging from 1 SLBM to 5-7 cruise missiles.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby dinesh_kimar » 12 May 2018 21:25

Los Angeles and French boats have much less power than our Arihant. Something like 27 MW I believe. And much less than the Akula's 190 MW. Displacements are all around 6-7k tons. Maybe Russian reactor has less efficiency (23-25℅) compared to nearly 40℅ in the West. Also, hotel loads of Russian subs are higher ( eg. German Diesel sub uses air compressor with 2 HP, Russia uses 5Hp.) Along with our quest for greater reactor power, maybe someone should also pay attention to detail engineering of various components - stuff I dunno anything abt like flux leakages, radiation losses, fuel pellet purity,etc.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5182
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby ShauryaT » 12 May 2018 21:51

^I think you are confusing MWt and MWe all over. The LA class does 30+ knots. Arihant cannot come close to those speeds. The Akula does so, only through brute power.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 13 May 2018 05:00

The configuration of the new Husky class which will take over after the current Yasen class is complete in the early part of the next decade is v.interesting. Supposed to be smaller and cheaper than the Yasens while equally or more capable, has two VLS modules forward and aft of a very streamlined sail.These carry an estimated 40+ missiles, including hypersonic missiles and even sub- launched UCAVs apart from a heavy load of torpedoes, etc.

This is something that the designers of our new SSN class could take a hard look at.The desi SSN would be still smaller than the Husky from available info., but would be tasked to carry BMos-H, or other desi missiles lkke Nirbhay,etc., apart from standard anti-sub and anti-ship weaponry.It would have to be a multi-role boat instead of being a dedicated HUK.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby barath_s » 11 Jul 2018 14:03

dinesh_kimar wrote:Los Angeles and French boats have much less power than our Arihant. Something like 27 MW I believe.


As someone said, you are confusing MWth and MWe. Los Angeles Class are 165 MWth S6G reactors Los Angeles class is an attack submarine, not a SSBN/boomer like Arihant. Ohio class submarine with S8G220MwTh/ has natural circulation at low power(ie it doesnt need to run noisy pumps for cooling; thereby achieving diesel electric or greater silence) is the corresponding boomer. (Actually Columbia class with S1B reactor and integrated nuclear electric propulsion; but there isn't much info on it.

Submarine design is complex,with deep interactions between the power and size of the reactor, the size and mass of the boat, speed(and thus drag), lifetime/refueling/refit life, HEU enrichment etc.

For example, the Alfa class was an innovative design with lead bismuth reactor that achieved super high speed (40+ knots) on extremely small tonnage. It was a failure but deeply influential.

France uses 5-7% LEU enriched fuel for 150MW K15 reactor for Barracuda SSN. India uses 40% enriched HEU in it's reactors.

SSBN ideally should be super silent and stealthy, rather than requiring high speed. The size is going to have to factor in size of long range SLBM it has to carry/launch.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby barath_s » 11 Jul 2018 14:36

Philip wrote:The configuration of the new Husky class which will take over after the current Yasen class is complete in the early part of the next decade is v.interesting. Supposed to be smaller and cheaper than the Yasens while equally or more capable, has two VLS modules forward and aft of a very streamlined sail.These carry an estimated 40+ missiles, including hypersonic missiles and even sub- launched UCAVs apart from a heavy load of torpedoes, etc.

This is something that the designers of our new SSN class could take a hard look at.The desi SSN would be still smaller than the Husky from available info., but would be tasked to carry BMos-H, or other desi missiles lkke Nirbhay,etc., apart from standard anti-sub and anti-ship weaponry.It would have to be a multi-role boat instead of being a dedicated HUK.


Walk before you try to run the Olympics. While there are times you can leapfrog generations, it is worth noting that even the famed Rubin and Malachite design bureaus are having trouble right now, with experimental construction on the Husky (malachite) not expected before 2023 (and I'll bite my hat if you actually get a submarine out by 2027) and Rubin's design for a similar cheaper boomer successor being recently rejected.

Meanwhile there's a lot of 'aspirational' wording that gets folded into such Russian statements. The reality, though is that as TASS reports :

The results of the R&D work that has been carried out by now to design this submarine "have been recognized as unsatisfactory" as "they fail to meet the customer’s requirements,"
.

Brahmos-H is unlikely to make it anytime soon/in these time frames, definitely not sooner than Zircon. UCAV can be possibly seen on other Russian boats before ; certainly Kanyon would , if it ever makes it to production/operationalization. (I doubt the practicality and funding of such a limited second use weapon)

The concepts, are interesting (smaller, cheaper, more automation, robotics, new armament, same universal launching platforms, quieter, early investigation of composites ) I could easily add even more concepts from Virginia class/Columbia class , but like I said, this has to ultimately become a realizable and practical design that gets implemented in a timely fashion.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit and 21 guests