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.
Post Reply
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Manish_P »

Pratyush wrote: Was it with a single crew. Or with gold and blue crews.
In UK they are 'Starboard' and 'Port' crews, 'Blue' and 'Red' crews in France. Don't know the chinese, russian equivalents.

Wonder what nomenclature IN will use... follow the british tradition probably.
Pratyush wrote: ..
As a matter of fact this is a concern I dehave WRT, the PLAN sub fleet that can be swapped out at Hambantota or Gwadar.
..
Good point.
The Sub is good to go with replacement crew and new rations, unless some heavy/detailed shipyard level maintenance is required.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ParGha »

Manish_P wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Was it with a single crew. Or with gold and blue crews.
Wonder what nomenclature IN will use... follow the British tradition probably.
Green and Gold, IIRC. As with many new and technical services, which were created after Independence, the Silent Service created its own traditions (with some influence of the submarine building nation's trainers and design layout, of course).
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Kersi »

I hope it is not a foolish question !!!
What are the advantgaes and disadvantages of a LEU viz-a-viz HEU reactor, for submarines ?
I am/was under the impression that HEU recators may NOT require refueling for the entire lifetime
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

Kersi wrote:I hope it is not a foolish question !!!
What are the advantgaes and disadvantages of a LEU viz-a-viz HEU reactor, for submarines ?
I am/was under the impression that HEU recators may NOT require refueling for the entire lifetime
That and the biggest one! We have experience with the HEU and not the LEU. LEU also cannot generate the same levels of power and thereby speeds the HEU can for a given volume:energy ratio. We should reject the LEU lemon the French are playing with however many areas of hull design, sonar, signatures, pump jet, turbo-electric motors (if they have it), we can use to leap frog the evolution of our first SSN.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by drnayar »

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/limit ... rine-deal/

HEU is anything above 20% enrichment, but US naval reactors on submarines and aircraft carriers use fuel that is 93–97% enriched weapons-grade uranium.

Using LEU requires bigger reactors as around 4.7% more enriched uranium is needed than for HEU.
Submarines using LEU must be refuelled every one to three years. The Virginia-class HEU fuel lasts for 33 years—the life of the submarine.

https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2020/ ... and_f.html

Currently, US and UK naval reactors are fueled by weapon-grade HEU (93.5% U-235). Russia and India also use HEU (≥ 20% U-235). The other two countries with nuclear submarines, China and France, use LEU.

A life-of-the-ship LEU core might still require a larger reactor pressure vessel and a modest increase in submarine length to provide additional buoyancy to offset the increased weight of the reactor compartment.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-shee ... -reactors/
In its 2016 report to Congress, the U.S. Office of Naval Reactors made it clear that LEU fuel could meet the rigorous performance requirements for naval reactors.

The naval propulsion “loophole” allows states to exempt naval fuel from international monitoring, which could drastically limit the IAEA’s ability to catch diversion of naval HEU to a nuclear weapons program.

The new trilateral AUKUS pact, under which the U.S. and UK would provide Australia with nuclear submarines fueled with weapon-grade uranium, adds a new element to the debate. The promised eight submarines would require export of about four tons of HEU, sufficient for at least 160 nuclear weapons,


https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/e ... 0in%20HEU.

ISince the reactor must be small enough to fit in the confined space of a ship at sea, most naval reactors have relied on highly enriched uranium (HEU) for their fuel, which can generate more energy by volume than low-enriched uranium as a result of the greater density of fissile uranium-235 present in HEU.

"India is on the HEU route for its boomers and killers"
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

Kersi wrote:I hope it is not a foolish question !!!
What are the advantgaes and disadvantages of a LEU viz-a-viz HEU reactor, for submarines ?
I am/was under the impression that HEU recators may NOT require refueling for the entire lifetime
https://uploads.fas.org/media/Life-of-t ... esting.pdf

As long as sufficient fissile material remains in the reactor. The reactor can produce it's rated thermal power output. Once it goes below the threshold where it cannot produce rated power. The reactor core has to be replaced.

The difference between LEU and HEU is simple. The LEU reactor core will have to be renewed multiple times over the life of the submarine. Thereby reducing the fleet availability. Over the 30 year service life of a submarine. It is quite possible that LEU design submarine spends upto 2 years getting it's core replaced. For a service life of 30 years, the ship spends 6 years in dry dock getting refueled.

Whereas a HEU core theoretically can serve the life of the submarine. Drydocking is required only when the submarine requires major refit and modernization.

Not needing to be drydocked it is available for longer periods of time.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Manish_P »

ParGha wrote:...
Green and Gold, IIRC. As with many new and technical services, which were created after Independence, the Silent Service created its own traditions (with some influence of the submarine building nation's trainers and design layout, of course).
Thanks
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

Manish_P wrote:In any case i am claustrophobic. I can't even be inside an elevator for more than 3-4 minutes. 4-5 storeys i take the stairs. Would pay to tour IN ships, but there is no way they could pay me enough to climb down a hatch to get into a sub (if such a thing is ever allowed).
Nice to meet a fellow claustrophobic :)

I have been inside a Kilo Class boat at Mumbai. I saw where the personnel service the boat's batteries. Downright scary for claustrophobics.

Serving aboard submarines is not for the faint of heart. Big Salute to them.
NRao wrote:However, I think they also change crews along with getting food.

The boats need maintenance too.
Pratyush wrote:Was it with a single crew. Or with gold and blue crews.
The boat in question was HMS Audacious. See the first Instagram post in this link ---> https://www.instagram.com/she_lilly/

One of the comments in the above Instagram post was this...

"Spent time in the Med. I understand that attack submarines don’t have two crews. The crew had leave period mid-patrol when they could fly home for a couple of weeks. Very tough for them and their families."

Reply to the above ^^^ comment is below....

"That's a proper deployment and you're right, fleet boats only have one crew."

Med is Mediterranean for the un-initiated. Details of which particular boat, her deployment to a specific region and details about her crew - however innocuous it may appear - should never be made public. You undermine the entire mission. I stumbled on this post via a simple Google search. Submariners live and die by the adage, "The Navies of the world do not talk about their submarines."

Run Silent, Run Deep.
Manish_P wrote:Have read about crew rotations (but thought that was only after the end of the patrol)
Crew rotations are for SSBN crews, to maximize the time spent at sea. A SSBN is not cheap to purchase or maintain, so every available minute has to be squeezed out of it during her service life.
ParGha wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Wonder what nomenclature IN will use... follow the British tradition probably.
Green and Gold, IIRC. As with many new and technical services, which were created after Independence, the Silent Service created its own traditions (with some influence of the submarine building nation's trainers and design layout, of course).
Indian submariners are divided into two schools of thought - one Russian and one Western. From Foxtrot (Kalvari/Vela) to Kilo (Sindhugosh) to Charlie-I (Chakra I) and then Akula (Chakra II), Indian submariners are confident of their platform. When HDW 209 (Shishumar) came in the 80s, Indian submariners saw the advantages of the Western design. The Scorpene (new Kalvari) Class has only further strengthened that belief.

The now-failed "30 year, 18 submarine" plan was to purchase one set of Western boats (six hulls) and one set of Russian boats (another six hulls). Take the best from both Western & Russian designs and then come up with a hybrid Indian-designed boat (i.e. Project 76). Obviously that did not pan out, but that was the plan. Project 75 Alpha will now take on that mantle.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

drnayar wrote:Using LEU requires bigger reactors as around 4.7% more enriched uranium is needed than for HEU. [/u]Submarines using LEU must be refuelled every one to three years. The Virginia-class HEU fuel lasts for 33 years—the life of the submarine.
The LEU reactor on the Barracuda Class requires refueling every 7 to 10 years, which is a vast improvement over her predecessor (the Rubis Class).
drnayar wrote:Currently, US and UK naval reactors are fueled by weapon-grade HEU (93.5% U-235). Russia and India also use HEU (≥ 20% U-235). The other two countries with nuclear submarines, China and France, use LEU.
Indeed. I am not sure of the length of time between refueling sessions of the Arihant Class SSBN, but it will take the boat of commission for a few years. The LEU reactor aboard the Barracuda Class can be refueled in a matter of weeks, providing the French Navy with very high uptimes.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

Rakesh wrote:
drnayar wrote:Currently, US and UK naval reactors are fueled by weapon-grade HEU (93.5% U-235). Russia and India also use HEU (≥ 20% U-235). The other two countries with nuclear submarines, China and France, use LEU.
Indeed. I am not sure of the length of time between refueling sessions of the Arihant Class SSBN, but it will take the boat of commission for a few years. The LEU reactor aboard the Barracuda Class can be refueled in a matter of weeks, providing the French Navy with very high uptimes.
IIRC it was 10 years for the Arihant and something to do with the level of enrichment of fuel used, the higher the level the longer the period between refueling. Reportedly the newest class of reactors on US subs are rated for 43 years!
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by SSridhar »

Rakesh wrote:The LEU reactor on the Barracuda Class requires refueling every 7 to 10 years, which is a vast improvement over her predecessor (the Rubis Class). . . The LEU reactor aboard the Barracuda Class can be refueled in a matter of weeks, providing the French Navy with very high uptimes.
Yes, it is close to 10 years. In fact, the choice of LEU or non-weapons grade U (< 20% enrichment) by the French, though HEU would have made life much easier, was dictated by the French regulation that all nuclear installations must be inspected every 10 years. In order to overcome the cumbersome process of cutting & welding the hull in order to inspect or refuel a naval nuclear reactor, the French have installed 'breches' (special hatchets) and they claim that they could refuel within weeks. Nobody else, India US Russia China & UK, uses LEU. Because the 'cores' have to be unloaded for inspection anyway once every 10 years, the French went for the LEU option.

The energy requirements of the SSBNs vastly differ from those of the SSNs because of operational requirements. SSBNs have a steady course while SSNs may have rapid start/stop with high speeds etc. LEU/HEU would determine how many times 'cores' would have to be replaced and hence the 'downtime' but not the power requirements from the reactor per se.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Prem Kumar »

For our S5 & SSN programs, will the same 190MW reactor design suffice? Would be great to achieve that kind of commonality
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

The more important question to ask is how many reactors of any capacity can be produced by India over a period of every 10 years.

Because the PLAN is increasing in size and India will need a lot more than 3 aircraft carrier and 6 SSN.

India is going to have to protect our trade and energy resources accross the world. In the absence of bases in Europe, South America and East Asia. Nuclear propulsion offers the best means of achieving this end.

Indian Navy needs to start thinking about a 400 ship Navy by 2050. With 8 to 10 super carriers. 60 to 75 nuclear attack submarine and 8 to 12 ballistic missile submarine. Plus destroyer and frigates.
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by hgupta »

how can a 10 sub fleet cost $385B total? A nuke sub initially costs $3B-5B. Ten of them makes it $30-50B. Lifecycle costs are usually 3 times the capital cost of the sub so that makes it $90-$150B and adding the capital costs of acquisition makes the total cost anywhere from $120Bto $200B over a 30 year lifespan.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

Prem Kumar wrote:For our S5 & SSN programs, will the same 190MW reactor design suffice? Would be great to achieve that kind of commonality
It will not only suffice but will be the most prudent thing to do. The Russian Borei and Akula II share the same reactor. The American Virginia and Ohio class reactors are close cousins. With some tweaks, we can even use multiple of these to power an aircraft carrier.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Manish_P »

Pratyush wrote:....

Indian Navy needs to start thinking about a 400 ship Navy by 2050. With 8 to 10 super carriers. 60 to 75 nuclear attack submarine and 8 to 12 ballistic missile submarine. Plus destroyer and frigates.
:shock:

Pratyush ji, even the jingo in me went 'baap re' on reading the above line :)

You will also need to add the P8I Poseidon and MQ-9 Sea Guardian equivalents. And the ASW and Minesweeper ships.

Conservatively thinking, i will be happy, if by 2050, we manage to have around 36-40 AIP Diesel-Electric boats, 10-12 SSNs, 4-6 SSBNs, 6 Carriers, 24-30 P8I, 36-48 MQ-9 equivalents.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

The fact is that Indian trade and energy requirements will require a global naval presence.

In order to preserve our strategic independence, we have to have an independent ability to protect our trade and commerce. The moment we are dependent on the goodwill of some other power. Our interests become subordinate to that power.

But this is completely OT to this thread.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... sion-door/

March 21, 2023
As expected, the US has stated that it will not share reactor technology with anyone else.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by drnayar »

Pratyush wrote:https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... sion-door/

March 21, 2023
As expected, the US has stated that it will not share reactor technology with anyone else.
“We have been clear from the outset, we have no intention of sharing our naval nuclear technology further,” Wier stated. Australia is good to go.

looks increasingly that american ass i sstance is more of hype and less on substance wrt India. Their priority is regime change.

UK shafted France out of the Aussie deal. , now they will "help" the aussies build their own submarines ..and we all know how it will turn out.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by srin »

Considering the cost of the assistance they offered in AUKUS (probably more of a sale than real TOT) - somewhere around $268B - $368 B AUD over a period of some 20 years - I'm quite happy they didn't offer it to us :lol:

It is a tactic to get one more poodle (by removing any knowledge they gained out of their troubled Collins class).
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by drnayar »

srin wrote:Considering the cost of the assistance they offered in AUKUS (probably more of a sale than real TOT) - somewhere around $268B - $368 B AUD over a period of some 20 years - I'm quite happy they didn't offer it to us :lol:

It is a tactic to get one more poodle (by removing any knowledge they gained out of their troubled Collins class).
indeed the american airforce secy is on record being troubled by indian atmanirbhar push for indigenous weapons !!!
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Kersi »

drnayar wrote:
Pratyush wrote:https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... sion-door/

March 21, 2023
As expected, the US has stated that it will not share reactor technology with anyone else.
“We have been clear from the outset, we have no intention of sharing our naval nuclear technology further,” Wier stated. Australia is good to go.
looks increasingly that american ass i sstance is more of hype and less on substance wrt India. Their priority is regime change.
UK shafted France out of the Aussie deal. , now they will "help" the aussies build their own submarines ..and we all know how it will turn out.
Another new "Collins" class submarines for Aussies !!!!!!
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by drnayar »

indeed that should "take care of" the Aussies for the next few decades !!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

The AUKUS Deal and India’s Submarine Dilemma
https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/the-auk ... e-dilemma/
14 April 2023
India’s quest for SSNs to ensure true deterrence against China will only be fulfilled with external assistance.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ParGha »

Rakesh wrote:The AUKUS Deal and India’s Submarine Dilemma
https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/the-auk ... e-dilemma/
14 April 2023
India’s quest for SSNs to ensure true deterrence against China will only be fulfilled with external assistance.
At best, a dangerous distraction from the SSBN program. With the limited resources available, and GoI's attention-deficit-hyper-disorder, it is much better to focus on getting the SLBM and SSBN programs fully ready.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

Rakesh wrote:The AUKUS Deal and India’s Submarine Dilemma
https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/the-auk ... e-dilemma/
14 April 2023
India’s quest for SSNs to ensure true deterrence against China will only be fulfilled with external assistance.
Does Akula count as external assistance? Does assistance with reactor design/testing count as external assistance? Idiotic journo

And why does India need SSN to deterrence against China? Isn't the real deterrence from SSBN?

Given the geography, India does not need its subs in South China Sea or the Pacific -- so time to station is not a big factor; and with a solid growth of AIP capabilities -- IMHO, SSK would be a good deterrence.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by RoyG »

The submarine dilemma is largely self made. Indian bureaucracy by design sabotages self sufficiency and innovation for fear that the outcome will negate its own existence.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

RoyG wrote:The submarine dilemma is largely self made. Indian bureaucracy by design sabotages self sufficiency and innovation for fear that the outcome will negate its own existence.
A bit of speculative assignment of intent - no?

Agreed that we may not agree with the decisions made in the past or present; but while we have the collective passion for our armed forces, we also bear zero real responsibility for failures. These decisions are made in an environment of maximum acceptable risk, competition for real resources, and the decision making sphere is not limited to submarines -- but contextually in combination of alternatives (military and otherwise).

Point is that the same bureaucracy that you so disdainfully dismiss -- it has in many significant ways contributed to India becoming the country we are so proud of.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

Worthwhile read.

https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/exc ... 95014.html

Exclusive: Navy Will Spend $200 Billion—Equal to Ukraine's GDP—on Subs It Barely Uses
...
The U.S. Navy can deploy barely a quarter of its attack submarine force at any one time, and last year, despite a war raging in Ukraine and China's rise as a global superpower, only 10 percent of its submarines operated stealthily by spending more than 30 days fully submerged.
...
A three-month Newsweek investigation reveals the problematic arithmetic of contemporary submarine operations. Newsweek obtained classified documents that show the full scope of submarine activities in 2022; reviewed the work of submarine-spotters worldwide; and conducted extensive interviews with naval officers and experts. The conclusion is stark: American submarines never came out in what naval officers call a "surge" against Russia or China, nor did the overall force ever increase its level of operations.
...
Over the planned 30-year life cycle of the Oregon, the submarine will go on 15 extended deployments, the Navy officially says. That comes to a cumulative 90 months, or indeed about 25 percent of the time.
....
"Can the United States surge more submarines in a war? Or operate more boats forward? Yes," says the captain, "but only for short periods of time."
....
According to secret Navy records, only 32 of 50 attack submarines deployed in 2022. Those submarines spent a cumulative 151 months at sea, a quarter of what was theoretically possible. On average, 28 percent of their time at sea was in transit to and from Asia and Europe, making the actual time forward deployed and "on station" about 107 months. In other words, less than 20 percent of America's attack submarines were deployed and fully operational at any one time during a tumultuous year. It also means that the plan to increase the number of attack submarines from 50 to 66 effectively adds only four deployable forward subs.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

Ocean going SSKs are, IMVHO, a red herring. It is for countries who want SSN capability but do not want to fork up the cash for a SSN fleet. It is for this very reason the Govt of Australia cancelled the Attack Class (Shortfin Barracuda) SSK program and jumped head on into an SSN program. See this post on SSN vs SSK ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&start=3760#p2582983. The difference is startling.

SSNs are absolutely vital for India, especially if you have a SSBN fleet and two (and in the future more) carrier battle groups. For SSBN fleets and CBGs, a SSN acts as a strong deterrent against enemy SSNs or surface fleets who could be looking to hunt and destroy them. So if the enemy is aware that you have a SSN fleet, then they now have to deploy additional assets to search for the SSN lurking in the area. So what could be a more condensed and resource rich search (hunting for the SSBN or a CBG), now gets somewhat diluted. The classic cat-and-mouse game.

SSKs are also vital, but more for coastal areas (brown water theatre). SSNs are the true ocean going submersible (blue water theatre).

@ Avid: Great find. Just a word of caution though. Submarine operations are HIGHLY classified in nature. Deployments, tenure, etc are closely guarded secrets. Info like the above is to be taken with a grain of salt. They are usually puffed up/padded for Congress to release funds to build more such vessels. Politicians are largely clueless. Throw out a few numbers, skew data, watch the politicians gulp and then ask for money. Time tested strategy :)
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

Rakesh wrote:Ocean going SSKs are, IMVHO, a red herring. It is for countries who want SSN capability but do not want to fork up the cash for a SSN fleet. It is for this very reason the Govt of Australia cancelled the Attack Class (Shortfin Barracuda) SSK program and jumped head on into the SSN program. See this post on SSN vs SSK ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&start=3760#p2582983. The difference is startling.

SSNs are absolutely vital for India, especially if you have a SSBN fleet and two (and in the future more) carrier battle groups. For SSBN fleets and CBGs, a SSN acts as a strong deterrent against enemy SSNs or surface fleets who could be looking to hunt and destroy them. So if the enemy is aware that you have a SSN fleet, then they now have to deploy additional assets to search for the SSN lurking in the area. So what could be a more condensed and resource rich search (hunting for the SSBN or a CBG), now gets somewhat diluted. The classic cat-and-mouse game of hunting submarines.

SSKs are also vital, but more for coastal areas (brown water theatre). SSNs are the true ocean going submersible (blue water theatre).
Agreed!

For IN -- if we are to draw out a threat map: what proportion of importance would we put to an arc from Andaman to Persian Gulf? and what proportion of importance would we put to further out than that?

In case of a conflict, it would be of utmost importance to dominate within that arc and deter outside of that arc. That domination potential itself would act as deterrence as well. Literally a message, "even if you can get past the SSN -- there is no getting past the SSKs"

IMHO, we have a significant deficit for dominating within the arc that still needs addressing. Thus my emphasis on prioritizing SSKs. I am not saying we do not need to continue development and production of SSN; but more like we need to add at the rate of 2-3 SSK to 1 SSN.

I think we are on the same page (likely) -- the need is to field a combined force of SSK and SSN; and some SSBNs. As the country grows economically that density and arc growth will likely expand.
Last edited by Avid on 19 Apr 2023 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by RoyG »

Avid wrote:
RoyG wrote:The submarine dilemma is largely self made. Indian bureaucracy by design sabotages self sufficiency and innovation for fear that the outcome will negate its own existence.
A bit of speculative assignment of intent - no?

Agreed that we may not agree with the decisions made in the past or present; but while we have the collective passion for our armed forces, we also bear zero real responsibility for failures. These decisions are made in an environment of maximum acceptable risk, competition for real resources, and the decision making sphere is not limited to submarines -- but contextually in combination of alternatives (military and otherwise).

Point is that the same bureaucracy that you so disdainfully dismiss -- it has in many significant ways contributed to India becoming the country we are so proud of.
The issue isn't 'a bureaucracy', it's the 'nature of the bureaucracy'

The nature in India's case is both collusive and subversive to productivity and innovation.

We tend to have this repeating pattern in most, not all, critical projects - after decades of performing a root cause analysis of failed or delayed projects, we tend to bullshit ourselves as to what the problem is.

It has turned many BRFites including mods into bullshit artists.

Notice how you actually said absolutely nothing in your above post. You have threads on BRF spanning over a decade with the same excuses and nobody can figure out what exactly the problem is. My post isn't intended to be insulting but meant to shift the focus to the disease and not the symptoms.

As for your last point, we were gifted with a family too which has also in many ways contributed to the country we are so proud of. Perhaps, like in 2014 it's time for a rethink as to whether the bureaucracy itself in its current form can deliver to the armed forces and country.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

Avid wrote:Agreed!

For IN -- if we are to draw out a threat map: what proportion of importance would we put to an arc from Andaman to Persian Gulf? and what proportion of importance would we put to further out than that?

In case of a conflict, it would be of utmost importance to dominate within that arc and deter outside of that arc. That domination potential itself would act as deterrence as well. Literally a message, "even if you can get past the SSN -- there is no getting past the SSKs"

IMHO, we have a significant deficit for dominating within the arc that still needs addressing. Thus my emphasis on prioritizing SSKs. I am not saying we do not need to continue development and production of SSN; but more like we need to add at the rate of 2-3 SSK to 1 SSN.

I think we are on the same page (likely) -- the need is to field a combined force of SSK and SSN; and some SSBNs. As the country grows economically that density and arc growth will likely expand.
Yes fully agree Avid. This is our theatre of operations (i.e. our backyard. It is named after us :) ) I cannot draw an arc on the image below, but I think you get the idea (an arc at the bottom of the picture). A sizeable SSK fleet (18 - 24) versus a reasonable SSN fleet [6 - 8] would be ideal.

We are nowhere even close to that mark. You hit the nail on the head - a "significant deficit" exists.

Image Source: http://www.yourchildlearns.com/online-a ... an-map.htm

Image
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

RoyG wrote:The issue isn't 'a bureaucracy', it's the 'nature of the bureaucracy'
The nature in India's case is both collusive and subversive to productivity and innovation.
I am generally averse to painting with broad brushes. I will accept that "parts of bureaucracy" are that. Because clearly DRDO, ADA, HAL, Mazagon Docks, etc are also run by the same bureaucracy. The ongoing creations public-private partnerships are also a result of the same.

Many like to point to why it was not done earlier. IMHO, capability building and capacity building take time. Private sector had some capabilities but not adequate. Even today, it relies on importing the capability we seek. That said, it is more agile in that acquisition (but likely also more costly but timely).

Private sector's profit seeking objective also implies that it will prioritize that over genuine capability building. It will do that if its profit maximization is increased for doing that. Follow that chain of logic and we will end up in the same MIC scenario that US is trapped in. That has repercussions in other spheres of governance. So, cautiously approaching the public-private to find the right balance is worth it.

We are likely seeking the same -- but we disagree on the speed. I would rather that the country come up on side of caution and short where public is more than private (thus slower) than you are wanting. Which is fine for a disagreement of opinion, since neither of us are actually responsible for the decision. :)
RoyG wrote:We tend to have this repeating pattern in most, not all, critical projects - after decades of performing a root cause analysis of failed or delayed projects, we tend to bullshit ourselves as to what the problem is.
History of military projects the world over will likely yield no single ambitious project that has come in on time, performed to expectations, and came at cost. JSF is prime example!
RoyG wrote:It has turned many BRFites including mods into bullshit artists.
This is a discussion forum. Individuals have diverse opinions, passions and affinities. We are discussing ideas and issues.

I do not believe it to be appropriate to judge the people -- especially those who dedicate their time and energy to enable the rest of us to air our opinions (often times not well thought out).
RoyG wrote:Notice how you actually said absolutely nothing in your above post. You have threads on BRF spanning over a decade with the same excuses and nobody can figure out what exactly the problem is. My post isn't intended to be insulting but meant to shift the focus to the disease and not the symptoms.
And yet you somehow managed to do just that :rotfl:
RoyG wrote:As for your last point, we were gifted with a family too which has also in many ways contributed to the country we are so proud of. Perhaps, like in 2014 it's time for a rethink as to whether the bureaucracy itself in its current form can deliver to the armed forces and country.
It takes nothing away from anyone because we acknowledge someone has contributed to the growth of the country.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

Avid wrote: Given the geography, India does not need its subs in South China Sea or the Pacific -- so time to station is not a big factor; and with a solid growth of AIP capabilities -- IMHO, SSK would be a good deterrence.
With SSK one can hide, but not hunt or run against a surface or sub-surface fleet of peers. It is only SSN that allows for this luxury and a vital need both to deter and play an offensive game with PLAN. I would rather prioritize the SSN over the SSK's both due to its capabilities and its indigenous content, even if copied.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Avid »

ShauryaT wrote:With SSK one can hide, but not hunt or run against a surface or sub-surface fleet of peers. It is only SSN that allows for this luxury and a vital need both to deter and play an offensive game with PLAN. I would rather prioritize the SSN over the SSK's both due to its capabilities and its indigenous content, even if copied.
No debate over 1 SSN is better than 1 SSK.
I keep going over this basic equation: 3 SSK cost = 1 SSN cost.
Closer to shores -- is it better to have 3 SSK spread out and create a net or 1 SSN that can hunt and chase?

Complicating it further -- if there are 12 SSK or 4 SSN.
At least 6 SSK will likely be deployed at all times, vs 1 SSN (based on USN data for 2022).

I suppose the question becomes that given the existing holes in our defensive coverage close to shores and as you well pointed out the ability to hunt and play an offensive, the required time to build and deploy -- where should the prioritization be?

Based on the UKR conflict, it clearly appears that beyond initial intense phase of conflict -- it all boils down to dominating (at best) couple hundred kilometers on either side of line of contact by air and/or land. And this is likely to be the same on water -- should it become a contested space.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

Avid wrote:
I keep going over this basic equation: 3 SSK cost = 1 SSN cost.
In the Indian context the SSK would be imports (at least major components) and the SSN would be highly indigenous the costs are comparable and not 3:1.
Closer to shores -- is it better to have 3 SSK spread out and create a net or 1 SSN that can hunt and chase?
Will not work that way. An SSK is no match against a hunting SSN, even in so called littoral waters, unless it gets a lucky shot. Cannot depend on luck for defense against PLAN SSN's in the Indian Ocean. The ocean is a huge space and the density required to be quiet and confront an SSN with a guided torpedo would not be easy. One will have to get within 10-15 miles of the SSN - quietly and pray that you are not detected by the SSN and get that one lucky shot as from that point on it is game over for the SSK, if the SSN survives.
Based on the UKR conflict, it clearly appears that beyond initial intense phase of conflict -- it all boils down to dominating (at best) couple hundred kilometers on either side of line of contact by air and/or land. And this is likely to be the same on water -- should it become a contested space.
We never want to be where Ukraine is on land, air or water. The stated doctrine against China is aggressive defense. On water, it means taking the fight far away from our shores and on to the high seas.

The issue is rightly about prioritization and cannot do it all. We need to focus on asset types that are best suited for the job and well within our capabilities, with some help.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by drnayar »

Correct me if i am wrong., SSKs are better than SSNs in littoral waters as they can hide better ., deep diving subs esp SSNs need a special steel that is not suitable for littoral vessels as again detection becomes easier., things might be different with some new generation materials and propulsion technologies. The USN itself made that trade off long back and had invested significant resources in bridging those gaps. , as they moved to a only nuclear propulsion for all its submersibles.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ShauryaT »

drnayar wrote:Correct me if i am wrong., SSKs are better than SSNs in littoral waters as they can hide better ., deep diving subs esp SSNs need a special steel that is not suitable for littoral vessels as again detection becomes easier., things might be different with some new generation materials and propulsion technologies. The USN itself made that trade off long back and had invested significant resources in bridging those gaps. , as they moved to a only nuclear propulsion for all its submersibles.
The SSK has a 20-30 feet advantage for minimum depths. When we speak littoral waters, literally speaking it is where sunlight can reach the ocean floor at about 40-100 feet depth? This will be within a few miles from the shore. Which submariner would want to play this game? The continental shelf extends about 20-80 miles from shore, IOW <1000 ft depths. The SSN loses its higher diving depth advantage within the continental shelf. The question is, would we want to lure a PLAN sub into this zone without much challenge? There are other assets to protect this zone. The SSN also has the option of using Active Sonar and use its speed advantage within the continental shelf, the SSK can ill afford to do so.

On steel, from what I understand the special steel is to sustain the high diving depths SSN can afford but SSK's cannot.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

Avid wrote: Agreed!

For IN -- if we are to draw out a threat map: what proportion of importance would we put to an arc from Andaman to Persian Gulf? and what proportion of importance would we put to further out than that?
If India is to become a major economy, then it needs to be able to secure it's sea lanes of communication to South America, West Africa, Northern Europe and The Russian far east.

Today we can say that the US will keep it open for India and the rest of the world. But given the psychotic nature of the US regime. How can anyone decide to remain dependent on the US keeping our sea lanes of communication open for India.
Avid wrote:
In case of a conflict, it would be of utmost importance to dominate within that arc and deter outside of that arc. That domination potential itself would act as deterrence as well. Literally a message, "even if you can get past the SSN -- there is no getting past the SSKs"


Deterrence outside of the arc requires an ability to operate outside the said arc in force. The size of the submarine arm and the rest of the Navy has to increase substantially in order to insure that India is able to dominate and deter as required.
Post Reply