Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 04 Sep 2017 23:26

Yasen is not full double hull of akula but some critical area like reactor and weapons section may be more like a 1.5 hull

Plus russia like higher reserve buoyancy and strong sails to break up through arctic ice they spend most of time skulking around in the polar seas

The 2nd sub onward is yasen2 based on latest tech they have andmight differ internally by a good delta

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 04 Sep 2017 23:53

Don't ships and subs use special grade steel to cut through ice? I don't think other western subs are double hulled but still played cat and mouse with Soviet subs in the arctic region.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 05 Sep 2017 07:51

i read somewhere western subs can break through 1m of ice while russian subs esp the SSBNs are designed for 3m.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 05 Sep 2017 12:10

Cosmo,I suggested the same thing some time ago. however,the die has been cast.The contest as we now know it is between a Mistral type vessel and a JC class vessel with Indian partners for each.The JC has a ski-jump for the provision of a JSF type bird later on. Whether we use the JSF or even a new Yak-141 derivative-since Russia is resuming development of the same, a provision in the amphibs for a modest strike capability using STOVL fighters would allow these vessels to
perform less onerous ops ,or even assist the CBG in a crisis. Ops that immediately come to mind are CAP,ASW,etc. The aircraft wehen engaged in amphib ops would have their own integral CS/strike capability too,in addition to heavy attack helos like the KA-52 being used by Egypt aboard its Mistrals.

Back to subs.The Vikrant was specifically tasked with the Bangladesh liberation as that was the prime objective in '71.Liberating Bdesh before the superpowers kicked in.The IN tool care of bombing the ports of E.Pak destroying their merchant shipping,preventing the escape of the Paki army.It did the job brilliantly.The only sad incident was the tragic loss of sev. troops in an amphib landing when the LC was not close enough to the shore and the disembarking troops did so in deep water and drowned.Using the venerable Sea hawks and Alizes,the Vikrant did a splendid job with one gammy boiler too! Western nations were amazed at how much we accomplished using a venerable carrier like her and her very modest aircraft.

Russia too,with a massive land mass spanning two continents and direct access to the Arctic,Baltic,Black Sea and Pacific waters,used large numbers of LRMP and bomber aircraft for patrols at vast distances from its territory. In the Syrian conflict we can see how sueful these LR bombers have been,striking targets in Syria,launching LRCMs from air bases deep inside mother Russia.Imagine if India too possessed a decent number of bombers,at least12.THey could wreak havoc anywhere in the Indo-China Sea and IOR.

With no expeditionary agenda too,preferring to use local proxies instead of direct intervention except in Europe (Hungary,Czechoslovakia) and Asia (Afghanistan),the Soviets did not need large numbers of carriers. They instead built offensive SSGNs like Oscars,one each for a USN carrier,the subs armed with 16-20 heavy long range anti-carrier missiles which could even pack an N-warhead. You can imagine the plight of a US carrier/escorts having to deal with a salvo of around 20 incoming supersonic missiles,some with N-warheads too! With the development of LRCMs,esp. the Tomahawk-which ushered in a revolution in maritime warfare,all major navies today are engaged in equipping their assets with such anti-ship and land attack missiles,preferably super supersonic and hypersonic in the future.After building the 7/8 v.costly Yasens,Russia is now planning to build two new smaller classes with specific capabilities instead of another large multi-purpose class like the Yasen.Costs,complexity of design and time in building them, This roughly corresponds to what we're also planning for our 6 SSNs,smaller boats of around 6000+t .For cost equivs. take a look at this.One Rafale sqd. of 18 aircraft at around $200+M a bird,adds upto around $4B. That figure if we invested in subs would give us at least 8-10 conventional/AIP boats (KIlos just $300M,Amurs probably not more than $400M) or 3+ SSNs.When you compare that with a CBG group,more than double.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby yensoy » 05 Sep 2017 14:25

Cosmo_R wrote:Go the whole hog. Use the new Vikrant hulls to build Wasp class LHDs—our version of JC stick 20 F35Bs and we get both and 2 for the price of 1


How will the 40000t hull be suitable for a 25000t ship?

Overall I have to agree that the change of focus to amphibious assault/helo/light aircraft carriers is the way forward. We can't have a supersized budget to support USN CBGs. A few of these inverted ironboxes will be great to control IOR and be useful to deploy ground forces if things go from bad to worse in the neigbourhood. SSN/SSBN can take care of China in SCS itself.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2017 19:16

For cheap sea control....Forget the unnecessary super carrier and instead

Get one more vikrant
Dozen backfires
Use viraat as heli carrier until Mistral types are inducted.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rakesh » 05 Sep 2017 19:19

Cain-ji, don't forget the subs - SSKs and SSNs.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10738
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Gagan » 06 Sep 2017 02:15

Develop Steam Catapult tech now,
also invest in developing EMALS tech.

India should have made a double or single hulled diesel test sub, a decade ago, but they didn't
Now there is a good government in power, so the need is to further develop Aircraft carrier tech and do as much inhouse as possible, and get outside help as needed.
But a wider and more distant vision has to be made and programs need to be started now !!!

I already hate the fact that the second line of conventional subs is not an entirely Indian design and that there will be screwdrivergiri for this. India will NEVER develop its own design of subs this way. In 30 years, sub technology will further advance, and then DRDO will start a mega project to build a super duper sub !!! Why not do it today hain ji?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rakesh » 06 Sep 2017 04:47

And Cain-ji, the second Vikrant...make the bloody lift hangars wider :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 06 Sep 2017 08:08

rather than backfires overhauled from some boneyard with iffy uptimes, it is better to invest in 12 new build blackjack mk2 which the russians are restarting production on. maybe we will start receiving in 5 years if we sign up now. they will have new engines and all new avionics and systems. plus they outrange and outcarry the backfires by a wide margin.

will not be cheap, but not any more so than C17 or apache / kg.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Sep 2017 08:19

Rakesh wrote:And Cain-ji, the second Vikrant...make the bloody lift hangars wider :)

Admiral Sir, ji ko chodo aur ji ne bhi do! :D
Yes, wider lifts, and the SSN/BN/GN program - full steam ahead please. The noises so far seem to be in the right direction - the nuke sub program seems well charted out and funded, backfires might again fire, i'm just hoping for the second vikrant class order to come through soon.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Sep 2017 08:21

Singha wrote:rather than backfires overhauled from some boneyard with iffy uptimes, it is better to invest in 12 new build blackjack mk2 which the russians are restarting production on. maybe we will start receiving in 5 years if we sign up now. they will have new engines and all new avionics and systems. plus they outrange and outcarry the backfires by a wide margin.

will not be cheap, but not any more so than C17 or apache / kg.

blackjacks would indeed be ideal - but they may have some issues with START type treaties iirc

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10738
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Gagan » 06 Sep 2017 08:24

Why buy Russian?
Ask the USA if they are willing to sell the B1Bs?
With Trump in charge, they will seriously give it a thought

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Sep 2017 08:28

No cruise missiles available to integrate with US...also are b1s in production like blackjacks?
Last edited by Cain Marko on 06 Sep 2017 08:29, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Manish_Sharma » 06 Sep 2017 08:29

In one report it was mentioned that it costs 2 billion dollars for Russia to build one Yasen SSGN. Can't we pay them 3 billion per Yasen and build 3 Yasens for us here in partnership with L&T? It seems so loaded up with arsenal.

Also it will help in SSNs too.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Sep 2017 08:31

There are noises about leading a yasen, but the problem was that the Russians couldn't spare any. But the above idea might very well work for a lesser price too

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 06 Sep 2017 08:32

neither the barracuda or astute class seem to feature VLS tubes which even the old 688I class has. it has 12 small tubes but given the sheer efficient 1500km range of the thawk SLCM it was a potent payload

goes to show the mastery of american designers in packing in N things into small spaces. any such sub can gravely damage a power station or POL storage in a single salvo and escape clean. compare to the resources needed to push a CV into range of hostile coast for such a strike and then escaping. below is our entire 1971 karachi harbour strike force in one lean pack.

Image

nits
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby nits » 06 Sep 2017 18:08

Video talking about India's Nuclear Submarine Plan by Shiv Aroor and Sandeep Unnithan


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2017 06:47

India's second indigenous nuclear submarine to be launched soon
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 477235.cms

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Sep 2017 16:36

Looks like game changing news is here. Time to rejoice, if confirmed.

In fact, the Indian Arihant-class SSBN seems far larger and more powerful than advertised by the government or the navy. It looks like the Arihant displaces some 8,000 tonnes as against its publicized tonnage of 6,000 tonnes. The follow-on sub — Aridhaman and the two other SSBNs in this class are larger still.

Naturally, this sort of tonnage cannot be pushed by a relatively puny 90MW miniaturized light water reactor. Matching the displacement with the power plant would put the latter at anywhere between 120MW-150MW for the Arihant, and nearer to 200MW for the Aridhaman.

Commissioning Aridhaman & Carriers - Bharat Karnad

The plant output seem guesstimates but the key thing to understand is the tonnage seems larger than advertised. Either ways, what this means is a viable power plant for SSBN's and SSN and Carriers is in place, if the above information has truth to it.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3838
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby hanumadu » 17 Sep 2017 17:06

BK's previous article said Aridhaman was already commissioned while all other news about it was it will be commissioned in a month. We will not know the true size and power of our nuclear reactors anytime soon.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 18 Sep 2017 12:34

SoKo also following the IN's lead.
South Korea plans to build nuclear-powered submarines
http://defence-blog.com/news/south-kore ... rines.html

I speculate that the 3rd. Akula ,Chakra-3,will be a further game-changer in the N-sub stakes for us vis-a-vis the PLAN. It definitely will possess newer tech than the Chakra-1 of Chakra-2. The fact that two boats have been taken to the Sevmash yard for inspection by an IN team,may indicate that both subs may be rebuilt/upgraded and we may be getting a 4th.Ideally,out embedded builders team could watch one sub being built by the experts,while in the next bay do the same ourselves along with Ru experts.getting hands-on experience,which will be crucial when the SSN programme begins. Secondly,the fact that the next series of Ru N-subs is going to be a smaller 6000t+ dual-series,one for an HUK sub and the other for land attack,etc.,indicates that our SSN design could be an export model of the SSN/HUK variant.This would make eminent sense.A ready available design,watching the same/similar subs being built in Russia,with Indian variations.One would imagine that we would like to design/supply the sonar ourselves,to suit the green,brown,blue waters of the littoral and IOR waters,and designed to accommodate any desi developed weaponry like the BMos-NG/L, Nirbhay LRCM (Klub.Kalibir equiv.) ,heavyweight torpedoes,etc. Acquiring a variant of the latest SSN being built in Russia would give us a massive qualiitative advantage,plus both Akula SSGNs,desi-built SSNs would also benefit from common eqpt.sensors and weaponry,making it far easier to train our crews and support and maintain these subs.

Here is a good glimpse into the new etch aboard Ru subs ,like new pumps,quieting systems,torpedo launch systems,etc.,some of the same which might feature on our N-subs to come.
http://observer.com/2017/09/russia-new- ... ubmarines/

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 21:12

for reference, cutaway of a Ohio class sub with trident .. note its not wholly contained in the spherical hull but is covered by that hump thing.

Image


Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3342
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Sep 2017 22:18

yensoy wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Go the whole hog. Use the new Vikrant hulls to build Wasp class LHDs—our version of JC stick 20 F35Bs and we get both and 2 for the price of 1


How will the 40000t hull be suitable for a 25000t ship?

Overall I have to agree that the change of focus to amphibious assault/helo/light aircraft carriers is the way forward. We can't have a supersized budget to support USN CBGs. A few of these inverted ironboxes will be great to control IOR and be useful to deploy ground forces if things go from bad to worse in the neigbourhood. SSN/SSBN can take care of China in SCS itself.


Wasp class run 44KT

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3342
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Sep 2017 22:23

Singha wrote:rather than backfires overhauled from some boneyard with iffy uptimes, it is better to invest in 12 new build blackjack mk2 which the russians are restarting production on. maybe we will start receiving in 5 years if we sign up now. they will have new engines and all new avionics and systems. plus they outrange and outcarry the backfires by a wide margin.

will not be cheap, but not any more so than C17 or apache / kg.


It's a thought. 12 TU-160s = 144 cruise missiles. Which is equal to six Aridhamans with 24. The subs however, come with stealth that is impossible with planes.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 549
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby nrshah » 20 Sep 2017 12:38

Cosmo_R wrote:
Singha wrote:rather than backfires overhauled from some boneyard with iffy uptimes, it is better to invest in 12 new build blackjack mk2 which the russians are restarting production on. maybe we will start receiving in 5 years if we sign up now. they will have new engines and all new avionics and systems. plus they outrange and outcarry the backfires by a wide margin.

will not be cheap, but not any more so than C17 or apache / kg.


It's a thought. 12 TU-160s = 144 cruise missiles. Which is equal to six Aridhamans with 24. The subs however, come with stealth that is impossible with planes.


Saar, what about time to reach to on station. Sir, it is not about either or. We need both flexibility of bombers and stealth of submarines. Different solution for different situations

Will
BRFite
Posts: 548
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Will » 20 Sep 2017 16:50

Gagan wrote:Develop Steam Catapult tech now,
also invest in developing EMALS tech.

India should have made a double or single hulled diesel test sub, a decade ago, but they didn't
Now there is a good government in power, so the need is to further develop Aircraft carrier tech and do as much inhouse as possible, and get outside help as needed.
But a wider and more distant vision has to be made and programs need to be started now !!!

I already hate the fact that the second line of conventional subs is not an entirely Indian design and that there will be screwdrivergiri for this. India will NEVER develop its own design of subs this way. In 30 years, sub technology will further advance, and then DRDO will start a mega project to build a super duper sub !!! Why not do it today hain ji?


People seem to forget that it was the previous NDA govt that sacked Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat and one of the main reason put out was that the Admiral wanted to go down the indigenous sub building route . The scorpene was thrust down the IN's throat by George Fernandes.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby sudeepj » 20 Sep 2017 21:04

Will wrote:
Gagan wrote:Develop Steam Catapult tech now,
also invest in developing EMALS tech.

India should have made a double or single hulled diesel test sub, a decade ago, but they didn't
Now there is a good government in power, so the need is to further develop Aircraft carrier tech and do as much inhouse as possible, and get outside help as needed.
But a wider and more distant vision has to be made and programs need to be started now !!!

I already hate the fact that the second line of conventional subs is not an entirely Indian design and that there will be screwdrivergiri for this. India will NEVER develop its own design of subs this way. In 30 years, sub technology will further advance, and then DRDO will start a mega project to build a super duper sub !!! Why not do it today hain ji?


People seem to forget that it was the previous NDA govt that sacked Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat and one of the main reason put out was that the Admiral wanted to go down the indigenous sub building route . The scorpene was thrust down the IN's throat by George Fernandes.


No, main reason was Bhagwat was a commie married to a commie and was bent on initiating some damaging 'inquiries' into the SSBN project. Communists need to be kept far away from the levers of power in India. They have done immense damage to the Indian state.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Sep 2017 22:20



Hopefully one day we will see our own SSGN video with such capabilities in next decade.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 21 Sep 2017 10:21

If SoKo gets the N-nod (from Uncle Sam),will Japan also not be far away?

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... |newslist1
Korea, U.S. agree on nuclear subs: JoongAng
Sept 20,2017
President Moon Jae-in’s ambition to build nuclear-powered submarines gained momentum Wednesday, despite the Blue House denying that there was an agreement with the United States on the issue.

Quoting multiple senior government officials, the JoongAng Ilbo published an exclusive report earlier in the morning saying Seoul and Washington have agreed in principle that South Korea will build nuclear-powered submarines. Moon would bring the news home from his
New York trip this week, one of the sources said.


“Until now, the two countries had close consultations on the issue,” another senior official was quoted as saying. “The discussion was already over among the officials working on the issue. The agreement can be made public at an appropriate time after Moon meets with U.S. President Donald Trump during the UN trip.”

“South Korea’s procurement of nuclear-powered submarines is a key mission of Moon’s New York trip,” he continued. “None of his predecessors accomplished it, but Moon has been able to persuade the U.S. government.”

The Blue House said Wednesday that the report is not entirely true. “Some media reports about an agreement between Seoul and Washington on the South Korea’s procurement of nuclear-submarines are different from facts,” Yoon Young-chan, senior presidential press secretary, said. “Until now, no agreement has been reached between the two countries.”

The statement, however, did not say whether there were discussions or not.

Moon is scheduled to have a bilateral summit with Trump on Thursday. A presidential aide was quoted by local media saying there is no plan to address the submarine issue at the summit.

Chung Ui-yong, head of the National Security Office of the Blue House, left for the United States on Wednesday to set the agenda for the summit. Moon left for New York on Monday, but Chung stayed behind. Moon has long promoted the need to bolster the country’s military capabilities against growing asymmetrical threats from the North. In a phone call with Trump on Aug. 7, Moon specifically mentioned the need for South Korea to own nuclear-powered submarines and build more powerful ballistic missiles.

It appeared that Moon wants to deter the North’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles with nuclear submarines while countering the North’s intercontinental ballistic missile technology with more powerful South Korean missiles. Moon and Trump already agreed to lift payload limits on South Korean missiles to counter the North’s escalating threats.

A submarine powered by a nuclear reactor allows the vessel to operate underwater at for practically an unlimited period of time. Conventional submarines, typically diesel-electric-powered watercrafts, need to refuel and recharge, making them more detectable.

The Roh Moo-hyun administration, which Moon served as a senior presidential aide, planned to build and deploy three 4,000-ton nuclear submarines by 2020. The plan was secretly initiated in 2003 and later canceled after media reports. Current Defense Minister Song Young-moo participated in the project while serving in the Navy.

Seoul was reluctant to develop nuclear-powered submarines due to Washington’s disapproval. Sources, however, told the JoongAng Ilbo that the latest provocations by the North led Washington to allow Seoul’s plan.

Uranium enrichment technology is a key to building nuclear-powered submarines. The JoongAng Ilbo reported that a vice foreign minister from the Moon government and a deputy head of the U.S. Department of Energy will hold a high-level committee meeting to discuss U.S. supplies of enriched uranium for nuclear submarines.

Under the current Korea-U.S. agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, South Korea is prohibited from enriching uranium or using enriched uranium for military purposes but allowed to purchase low-enriched reactor-grade uranium for power generation. In contrast, highly-enriched uranium is the source of nuclear weapons.

“The United States banned Korea from building nuclear arms, but it didn’t prohibit Korea from nuclear power generation and nuclear-powered military vessels,” said Shin Beom-chul, professor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.

Even before he took office, Moon stressed the country’s need to build nuclear-powered submarines. During a presidential debate in April, Moon said he would seek revision of the nuclear agreement with the United States, if he won the election, to push the submarine project.

Defense Minister Song has also advocated the need to build nuclear-powered submarines since July. Experts said nuclear-powered submarines are particularly crucial to counter the North’s submarine-launched ballistic missile technology. The North successfully launched a ballistic missile from a 2,200-ton submarine on April 23, 2016. The North currently operates about 70 submarines and is expanding their sizes to carry more missiles.

“Because they fire ballistic missiles secretly from underwater, it is hard to detect the signs of launch or their locations,” said Kwon Yong-soo, a former professor at the Korea National Defense University. “As of now, we don’t have means to intercept them.”

Moon Geun-sik, a former South Korean Navy captain who led the Roh administration’s nuclear submarine project, said nuclear-powered submarines are perhaps the only effective deterrence of submarine-launched missiles. “Our submarines should track down enemy submarines from the moment they start sailing and sink them when there is a sign of missile launch,” he said. “That is probably the best option.”

According to Moon, nuclear submarines can operate underwater as long as they have food supplies. The South Korean Navy’s diesel-electric submarines, however, need to surface to recharge. A 1,200-ton Chang Bogo-class submarine needs to surface at least once a day. The larger 1,800-ton submarines can stay underwater for up to two weeks.

The Roh administration completed the basic designs for nuclear submarines, Moon said. It even planned to purchase uranium from Russia or France if the United States opposed.
*(this is v.interesting,that the designs have been completed)

Moon said it will take no more than five years for the country to build nuclear subs. “The small-sized SMART [System-integrated Modular Advanced ReacTor], developed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, can be downsized further to power a submarine,” said Moon. “If this is pushed forward as a state project, we can sail a nuclear submarine within five years.”

As of now, only six countries — the United States, Russia, England, France, China and India — operate nuclear-powered submarines. They are all nuclear-armed states.

China is destined to protest South Korea’s plan to build nuclear submarines. “The Navy will likely arm the nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles,” said Kim Jin-hyung, who formerly headed the Joint Chief of Staff’s strategic and planning department. “China will hate them operating in the Yellow Sea.”

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9677
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby sum » 21 Sep 2017 11:01

^^ What advantages exactly does a Nuke sub bring to SoKo which it doesnt have so far?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 21 Sep 2017 11:37

Long endurance,better and increased weaponry,but in truth it appears that it wants an SSBN/SSGN type sub,which can later carry its own N-deterrent,a second-strike capability should it also go nuclear at some future time. With the news of NoKo's SSBN ambitions/programme, It has already built enough German U-boats for its littoral,coastal and brown water reqs. it now wants true blue-water capability which only N-subs deliver to the full,even conv. boats with AIP have less time on station are much slower and have to be return to base for refuelling, etc. at regular intervals unlike an N-sub which can stay at sea for 90-100 days and may never need refuelling. If SoKo goes the N-boat way,I can't see Japan lagging far behind.In fact the Japanese srat. planners must be dusting off their own N-sub designs!

This is why the greatest priority for India is swiftly securing its SSBN second-strike capability with the completion of the SSBN programme,with a parallel prog. for the SSNs and SSGN Akula lease deals.IN yet another parallel programme,augmenting the conv. diesel/AIP inventory through two simultaneous sub building projects are needed.One at MDL and another perhaps in a pvt. yard.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Singha » 21 Sep 2017 11:49

unless Soko plans a sea based deterrent or a clash with china, n-subs are not going to help them much.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9677
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby sum » 21 Sep 2017 12:08

Singha wrote:unless Soko plans a sea based deterrent or a clash with china, n-subs are not going to help them much.

^^+1.

Thats what i was wondering as to what help does it provide against NoKo ( other than showing that if NoKo can have it, we should have it concept)

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 21 Sep 2017 20:05

http://www.news18.com/news/india/made-i ... 24503.html

This must be up to date, or has someone posted it already? Good news!

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 21 Sep 2017 20:10

Sir, I opened it thinking it's about nuclear submarine. Been in the news that Kalvari will be commissioned next month.

Prithwiraj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Prithwiraj » 22 Sep 2017 06:36

I must say with the proliferation of smart phones with cameras we have done a pretty good job of preventing leakages of these vesel under construction images. If not hundreds there must be gealthy mix of regular welders, officers, engineers, russians who must be working on it and still not a single pic. They must be checking each one of them for hidden cameras or cell phones daily during the shift

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby prasannasimha » 22 Sep 2017 07:38

All such establishments ban phones and electronic equipment. It us an offence to carry them there

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 22 Sep 2017 08:24

Indeed, even in certain IT companies, smart phones are banned.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 18:37

Adm.Bhagwat was a brilliant chief,but had his detractors too. He was sacked becos he refused to toe the babu line and promote V.Adm.Harnider Singh as DCNS. Uncle George was also a maverick,allowed his official residence to be used by rebels of other nations!
Bhagwat questioned (rightly) why nothing was happening reg. the ATV programme when so much of money was being spent on it,also moolah from the IN's budget.That was the argument/excuse given to sack him.Now the appointment of a DCNS is a v.big decision,becos that 3* officer could become chief in due course.Adm. B felt that VAdm. H was not the man for the job. Had Bhagwat's plan for 24 subs for the IN,at that time,been carried through,the IN's sub fleet would not have been in such sorry shape.

Many top officers in the services have powerful godfathers,which is why they get to the top,or ranks just below chief.
I know one example where a v.powerful personal sec. of the PM wanted to promote a naval officer against the then chief's wishes.Time and time again he was rejected by the naval board.The PS even threatened the chief with dire consequences.The chief told him to "go suck an egg". The chief was then summoned by the then PM Mrs. G.She was furious and demanded to know why the CNS was refusing to promote the gent in Q.The chief then spelt out his objections saying that the officer was totally unsuitable for the post.He also offered to resign over the issue.However,Mrs. G had great faith in her chiefs,remember how she listened to FM Sam's advice on waiting ,preparing thoroughly before crushing Pak in '71? Mrs. G then told the chief not to worry about the matter and that he would not be harassed again on the issue.
Just before retirement,the chief warned his successor about the issue and predicted that it would resurface.He was proven right.Almost immediately after he took office his predecessor was confronted with the issue.He preferred to play ball,the officer in Q was promoted!

This tale was told by the ex-chief at an Army Day celeb. at Wellington when the chief,a v.popular figure in his lifetime,was surrounded by many Staff College officers of the 3 services. The chief said that he was v.lucky to make it to the top and was full of praise for Mrs. G and her handling of the services.He said that he hoped that the officers who would make it to sr. lvl. posts would similarly develop the stiffness of spine and resist the unjust demands of babudom.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Sep 2017 19:02, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dileep, gauravsharma and 55 guests