Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2015 17:24

Varoon,Force mag.Frontline too has a feature,with a pic of the trial reactor at Kalpakkam.Ultimately,it is the weaponry aboard the sub that matters.Our Scorpenes have inadequate sub-launched Exocets,inferior to the Klubs,plus no equiv to Shkval rocket torps. Even if the Scorps sonar has an advanced sonar with long detection ranges,unless it has the French long-endurance torps,which supposedly have several hours of endurance,trying again and again to hit the target,it will not be able to leverage that detection capability unlike a sub with the sub-launched Klub variant. Our subs must also have a hard kill anti-torp capability,similar to that of an anti-missile capability.There is no guarantee that decoys will work in an attack,where a salvo of torps are fired. However,any development of such a capability will be highly classified for any navy.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 02 Nov 2015 14:44

shiv wrote:Something I came across recently said that India did not involve its Kilo class in international naval exercises for a long time because they did not what its sound signature to be mapped. If that is true then it is hardly likely that the Arihant will find a place in these exercises. In the IN Foxtrots book I read it was mentioned that the Foxtrot's sound signature could be masked by running its three propellers at different speeds. But that ain't possible with just one.

It is my understanding that acoustic signatures are more to do with hearing and recording underlying internal mechanical noises rather than just propeller noises. Changing propeller noises therefore has a negligible impact on actual acoustic detection and signature identification as it has a negligible impact on internal mechanical noises.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Nov 2015 18:41

Lisa wrote:
shiv wrote:Something I came across recently said that India did not involve its Kilo class in international naval exercises for a long time because they did not what its sound signature to be mapped. If that is true then it is hardly likely that the Arihant will find a place in these exercises. In the IN Foxtrots book I read it was mentioned that the Foxtrot's sound signature could be masked by running its three propellers at different speeds. But that ain't possible with just one.
It is my understanding that acoustic signatures are more to do with hearing and recording underlying internal mechanical noises rather than just propeller noises. Changing propeller noises therefore has a negligible impact on actual acoustic detection and signature identification as it has a negligible impact on internal mechanical noises.

Yes and even human generated noises - speech, coughing etc can be picked up so silence must be total if possible. But spoofing is when you know others are listening - there was an incident mentioned in the book when an Indian sub was sailing on the surface and an Australian maritime patrol aircraft dropped a buoy. That was when the sounds were masked after which the sub went and picked up the buoy to study it ensuring first that it was not booby trapped to explode when interfered with - all in full sight of the patrol aircraft

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 02 Nov 2015 23:06

Silence is the only countermeasure. No amount of spoofing really works as any sound will attract attention. My friend hunted submarines for a living and this in essence is his opinion and my understanding. In his experience he has NEVER come across spoofing or the creation of an alternate acoustic noise to occlude an actual image (I had asked the specific question of him some months ago). The Russians have been collecting sonar buoys for a very long time. There are in existence images of a sailor plucking one out of the sea.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2015 02:26

white noise and silencing techniques are not such a unique tech.
Commercial airlines do it, my car does it.
The tech obviously was initially a military tech, which has found its way to civilian use commercially.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2015 14:02

There are towed acoustic decoys that try and mimic a sub as far as poss. to fool "fish". However some of the latest "fish" have extra long endurance and keep on hunting even if fooled initially.They have an endurance for a few hours according to some reports. Dealing with this type of torpedo requires a hard-kill solution.

http://blog.usamm.com/the-navys-new-ant ... do-system/

The Navy’s new Anti-Torpedo System
Testing the system aboard the USS H.W. Bush

Looking for an underwater weapons system that finds, classifies and destroys enemy torpedoes? Look no further. Or at least the Navy can stop looking…

Technology developers from the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory have developed the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) System, and are now conducting the first tests of its kind.

The latest and greatest Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo, basically combines the passive detection capability of the Torpedo Warning System with a hard-kill, encapsulated, miniature torpedo.

From May 15-19, the aircraft carrier, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), first conducted the carrier-borne end-to-end at-sea test of the SSTD System. Designed to discover, seek and kill hostile torpedoes, the SSTD was tested over the four-day period and engaged seven torpedo-like targets. Utilizing the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedoes, meant to validate the end-to-end of the system, the U.S. Navy announced last week that the tests were successful.
military awards

The mini-countermeasure torpedo

“These tests are a culmination of a very focused effort by the Navy including the program office, Bush’s crew, Norfolk Naval Shipyard and our academic and industrial partners. With all seven of our shots doing what they are designed and built to do, it validates our work and significantly enhances our current capabilities,” said Capt. Moises DelToro, the Undersea Defensive Warfare Systems program manager.

The test was the very first in history launched by a high-value target, like the Bush. Although aircraft carriers have with them a great deal of defense systems, there is very little anti-torpedo technology onboard. Combat System on surface warships includes a multifunction towed array with acoustic intercept sensor and the Torpedo Recognition and Alertment Functional Segment (TRAFS) to provide warning that a torpedo is inbound.

However, this is the first automatic detection and automatic targeting of an incoming torpedo ship and the first launch of the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo from a carrier, making these steps unprecedented in naval warfare.

“It is gratifying to have these tests go so well,” said Rear Adm. David Johnson, program executive officer. “The engineering involved to detect a hostile torpedo, process its direction, speed, depth, and then engage it with a carrier-launched Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is impressive. I am confident that the fleet will be pleased with the results.”

Given the complexity of the system, the program office is taking an incremental approach to the development and acquisition of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System.
ribbons

A rendering of how the SSTD works

“What is currently aboard Bush is an engineering development model, or EDM, that is a fully-functioning system, but not the final configuration or production model,” DelToro said. “We’re learning from the Bush to improve the system so we can provide the most robust and cost-effective hard-kill anti-torpedo capability possible.”

Believe it or not, the torpedo threat to U.S. and coalition naval forces is still very real…and it’s growing. Tens of thousands of torpedoes – from relatively unsophisticated yet still-deadly weapons to highly complex, leading-edge designs – are in the inventories of navies worldwide. While capable of being launched from surface ships and aircraft, the submarine-launched torpedo poses the gravest danger to mission success. Detection advantage, like the SSTD is intended to tilt the playing field in our favor.

The Navy currently plans to equip all aircraft carriers and other high-value units with the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense system by 2035.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Nov 2015 13:05

The Russia-India submarine tango will blindside the US Navy

13 November 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Commissioning of Russian nuclear subs in the Indian Navy will generate a huge spinoff for both India and Russia.

Russia and India – either through design or happenstance – are set to engage the western navies in an interesting game of undersea hide and seek.

Chasing nuclear submarines is how major navies earn their keep. The Russian and US fleets track each other’s subs on a 24/7 basis by listening to the acoustic signatures – a combination of noise emissions – that are unique to each type of submarine.

For several decades the Americans held the advantage as they claimed to have quieter submarines. The Russians closed the gap by the mid-1980s and today their submarines have got the inside track on the US Navy. The net result is this undersea contest has become more intense now and the stakes are a lot higher too.

Unlike surface ships and aircraft, submarines do not have markings or IFF (Identify Friend/Foe) codes that can out them. The only way to identify a sub is through its acoustics. This aspect works to the advantage of Russia and India if both have the same class of submarines.

The signature of an Indian Navy Akula is indistinguishable from the acoustics of a similar submarine with the Russian Navy, making it difficult or perhaps impossible for the Americans to tell one from the other. As more Russian nuclear submarines join the Indian Navy’s undersea fleet, it just adds to the complexity of tracking Russian submarines. The US Navy will have to divert more time, effort, vessels, aircraft and personnel to this increasingly complex job.

The US Navy does not just track the Russian fleets but Indian Navy vessels too. According to a report by the Indian Military Review (February 2014), the American P3 Orion aircraft operating in the Indian Ocean are known to generate data on both Russian and Indian submarines.

Since secrecy is paramount for the survival of submarines – which usually lack self-defence weapons – India cannot risk any country knowing the whereabouts of its second strike element. Hoping the US will not pass on information about the location of Indian submarines to Pakistan or China is not only bad policy but potentially suicidal as well. The wiser option is to achieve submarine synergies between the Russian and Indian navies and blindside anyone who is tracking their fleets.

Reports that New Delhi is in talks with Moscow to lease a second nuclear submarine for 10 years suggests this undersea synergy could be a reality in the coming years.

Akula: Wolf of the sea

The latest submarine likely to be handed over to the Indian Navy will be the K-322 Kashalot, which Russia’s Pacific Fleet had kept in reserve. This is the third time India is leasing a nuclear-powered attack submarine from Russia.

The Kashalot belongs to the same Akula II class as the INS Chakra II which is currently on a 10-year lease to the Indian Navy. The 8140 ton vessel has a submerged speed of 30 knots, has achieved a dive of a phenomenal 620 metres and is equipped with eight torpedo tubes. It has an endurance of 100 days with a crew of 73. According to the RusNavy.com, the submarine achieved a Russian Navy record in 1991 by trailing foreign submarines for over 14 days without interruption.

No wonder the Indian Navy loves the Akula. “The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill US Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” a US official told the Beacon. “It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the US Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.

That pretty much sums up why the Akula was a big scare word among western navies during the 1980s. After a brief absence during the 1990s, when the Russian Navy shrank faster than a deflated balloon, these upgraded attack submarines are back, prowling the oceans.

Yasen for India?

If the Akula was a scareword, then the Yasen is a frightful nightmare for its opponents. The cruise-missile carrying boat was designed to target US aircraft carrier strike groups. Considering that India is a former victim of American gunboat diplomacy, the Yasen should be the perfect solution for scuttling any foreign adventurism in the Indian Ocean.

According to the US Naval Institute, “One of the US Navy’s top submarine officers was so impressed with Russia’s new (Yasen) nuclear attack boats that he had a model of K-329 Severodvinsk built for his office. Rear Admiral Dave Johnson said he had the model of Severodvinsk placed outside his office in a common area so that he could look at it every day on his way to his office.”

The 13,800 ton (more than double the size of the INS Arihant), 390 feet long submarine has a maximum “silent” speed of about 20 knots and a maximum speed of up to 40 knots. The sea endurance of these boats is limited only by food supplies.

The Yasen and similar new generation submarines have allowed the Russians to run rings around the Americans in recent years, demonstrating a quantum leap in technology and high levels of seamanship.

According to strategic affairs expert Bharat Karnad, “Despite the vaunted anti-submarine warfare capabilities of the US Navy, a Victor III class Russian SSN....tailed an Ohio-class SSBN almost to its pen in Guam without anybody getting wind of it — that’s how loud the US boomer is in turbulence terms and how little turbulence is generated by the Russian boat.”

He adds: “Russian subs have since the sixties carried electro-optical devices in the sail and the hull to detect turbulence and identify enemy subs by their turbulence signatures. The Yasen can be in the SSGN cruise missile-carrying configuration, or, if India so wishes, it can be modified to carry a mixed ordnance load of conventional cruise missiles and nuclear ballistic missiles. That would be a devastating dual-purpose land attack-cum-strategic targeting weapons platform nonpareil to have in the Indian Navy service. There’s nothing like the Yasen-class with the Chinese Navy.”

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 14 Nov 2015 14:24

Russian ship classes are always confusing to me.

There is no Yasen class submarine called Yasen.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Nov 2015 14:29

^^ I think Yasen and Akula are NATO nomenclature , Russian designation for 971 class is Schuka what West calls Akula

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Nov 2015 17:23

Plenty of info here.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine

An improved version of first two subs is in the works which will make this class even more capable.I recently posted news that the Russians are designing/building two new classes of subs,one a carrier-killer to replace the Oscar class and the other a pure hunter-killer of SSBNs.Russian sub tech has in many respects equaled US N-sub tech and in some overtaken them. The unique non-conventional sensors seen on the sail and hull of Akulas (not on the INS Chakra though) feature novel ways in detecting turbulence,wake,etc. of enemy subs.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Nov 2015 23:30

The signature of an Indian Navy Akula is indistinguishable from the acoustics of a similar submarine with the Russian Navy, making it difficult or perhaps impossible for the Americans to tell one from the other.

Perhaps during WW2. In 2015 there are computers to perform signal analysis and identify individual vessels by their particular acoustic signature. Perhaps the author will encounter this new technology of the computer someday.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Nov 2015 06:52

aren't there any demag or deperm solution for this mad-ness?

if brits were doing this research, we should have done it too

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 15 Nov 2015 15:05

Yasen class on offer to India??
And I request members to enlighten me on Russian Subs and types.
They always feel mysterious and confusing to Me.
Thanks in Advance

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/07/13 ... rine_44197

member_29247 · Post by **member_29247** » 15 Nov 2015 15:20

What if a remix of RD Burman sung songs and gulag Ali Ghazals in low frequency amplifying with a badly made BEL ( from the rejected bin) class B push pull output stage which almost generates flat pitch or even better the out put of struthi box of Carnatic music sound be propagated under water with a decoy towed...

My preferred songs are

Sunday may logon kabhi kabhi doka no jays hai
With Hametho loot Liya musth musth walone gore gore walone
Mixed with Gulamali ghazal with a tambura shruthi of low pitch.

Remember High frequency gets attenuated in water and flow frequency goes farther....

Ofcourse Bose noise cancellation headphones tech can be reverse engineered too

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 15 Nov 2015 15:32

Spinster wrote:What if a remix of RD Burman sung songs and gulag Ali Ghazals in low frequency amplifying with a badly made BEL ( from the rejected bin) class B push pull output stage which almost generates flat pitch or even better the out put of struthi box of Carnatic music sound be propagated under water with a decoy towed...

My preferred songs are

Sunday may logon kabhi kabhi doka no jays hai
With Hametho loot Liya musth musth walone gore gore walone
Mixed with Gulamali ghazal with a tambura shruthi of low pitch.

Remember High frequency gets attenuated in water and flow frequency goes farther....

Ofcourse Bose noise cancellation headphones tech can be reverse engineered too

^+1

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2015 07:02

Such decoy bouys can be mass produced cheap.

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 16 Nov 2015 09:35

^^ that website is a russian bootlicking one, it was also saying Arihant's nuclear reactor is russian one, even though it's blatantly false.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Nov 2015 10:00

The Yasen class is much too expensive for us and much larger than the Akula.In fact,it would be preferable for us to go in for at least 4 Akulas,with the latter 3 modified to have Yasen class tech,sensors and weaponry inputs.These will be inducted far afster than the 6 built-in-India SSNs.We should first build our 6 planned SSBNs and variants of the Arihant class at home,while getting our SSGNs built at speed in Russia. It may be too much to handle,building 2 N-sub lines and 2 conventional sub lines as well,Scorpenes and P-75Is at home. Similarity in components,etc., for both SSBNs and SSGNs would help accelerate the acquisition of N-subs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Nov 2015 12:41

Some authoritative sources claim that it is a Ru design.built by us using local materials/components to drawings provided by the Ru OEM.

I was flipping through a mag which featured two articles on the Derby/Python and the Astra.Both appear to have similar characteristics.We are supposedly acquiring both. Can someone throw more light on the subtle differences between the two? Astra according to that article has a Ru Agat seeker head being made locally with total TOT.Some confirmation reqd.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 16 Nov 2015 13:09

Philip sir ... we want to have Yasen class only, I don't see a reason of it being "much too expensive". I hope, they are not applying stupid but simple math formula to kill the deal.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Nov 2015 14:44

Philip wrote:Some authoritative sources claim that it is a Ru design.built by us using local materials/components to drawings provided by the Ru OEM.

I was flipping through a mag which featured two articles on the Derby/Python and the Astra.Both appear to have similar characteristics.We are supposedly acquiring both. Can someone throw more light on the subtle differences between the two? Astra according to that article has a Ru Agat seeker head being made locally with total TOT.Some confirmation reqd.

You have got the confirmation that you wanted to hear.One Ruski website says something then that's gospel and but after any amount of project updates over the years you still need proof it is not a copy? After this drivel what's the point in presenting any facts you.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 16 Nov 2015 14:51

Philip wrote:Some authoritative sources claim that it is a Ru design.built by us using local materials/components to drawings provided by the Ru OEM.
...

... Nah, no such thing happened, except in your head, as is the case with anything indigenous anyway - so nothing new there.

Apart from sheer-absurdness of such an design-handing over claims, consultancy, however extensive it is, is at the end-of-the-day consultancy and doesn't substitute for design-and-actual-building (at the equipment-level).
If so, what exactly is stopping Russia to hand-over the entire enriched-U fuel rod enrichment, fabrication, (re)processing etc etc etc (all hard-earned-after-decades-of-lonely-back-breaking work by SDRE folks). After all, if Russia is to willfully violate the enn-pee-tee by sharing the reactor design details etc, why not take these next steps as well.

But Russians are much more intelligent and practical, than you normally credit them with, actually. Something, that is quite evident in the careful calibration of helping a friend while living upto the global expectations befitting super-power (once!!) like in the case of – the rumor that Russians had provided detailed drawing of the Charlie II leased submarine without the reactor design etc.

What most probably would have happened, is while the core-reactor part was actually achieved successfully indigenously, stuff like the miniaturization of the steam-generator, materials for the pressure hull (HY-80 related issues), harbor facility for handling radioactive materials, control rod insertion and withdrawal mechanism, general reactor integration issues with the submarine hull etc etc etc is where quite extensive Russian consultancy was obtained - and thus everybody from the DRDO chief to the PM have acknowledged this and have rightfully thanked a dear friend-in-need country.

After all, not sure how many people would also acknowledge that ATV was also the first attempt of an indigenous designing and building of a working submarine as well (irrespective of the propulsion aspects).

But, then again, nothing short of a "full-design sharing and SDREs merely doing screw-drivergiri" would satisfy the fine-anti-indigenous-tastes-and-sensibilities of yours - so a lonely repeat of such lies ad-nauseam, hoping-against-hope that after thousand such tries, it would become a “truth” and you can finally be at-peace-with-your-inner-self, isn't it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Nov 2015 15:47

maitya wrote:After all, if Russia is to willfully violate the enn-pee-tee by sharing the reactor design details etc, why not take these next steps as well.

FWIW
Nuclear Naval Reactor dont come under NPT and Bharat Karnad in his book Indian Nuclear Policy when he was NSC member , mentioned Indian Imported 2 Reactor for Nuke Submarine program.Also Arun Prakash ex Naval Chief mentioned that ATV design was done with Russian assistance and many things have come from there.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 16 Nov 2015 16:33

Austin wrote:
maitya wrote:After all, if Russia is to willfully violate the enn-pee-tee by sharing the reactor design details etc, why not take these next steps as well.
FWIW
Nuclear Naval Reactor dont come under NPT and Bharat Karnad in his book Indian Nuclear Policy when he was NSC member , mentioned Indian Imported 2 Reactor for Nuke Submarine program.Also Arun Prakash ex Naval Chief mentioned that ATV design was done with Russian assistance and many things have come from there.

Wrt the bolded part above, pls note ALL Nuclear Reactor do come under NPT - what doesn't come under NPT is production and removal from IAEA oversight any nuclear materials (e.g. enriched uranium), to be used in non-military activities such as naval nuclear propulsion.

Although until now, no non-nuclear state has tried that option.

Nobody is disputing what Adm Arun Prakash is saying - a lot of non-propulsion (in fact maybe even some aspects of the propulsion aspects as well - pls re-read my post) design of the ATV was done with Russian "assistance" no doubt. However that still doesn't make "somebody gave the poor SDREs the complete design and the manufactured components as well, while the SDREs did merely a screw-driver-giri to it.

Nothing of that sort happened.

(PS: It's said that the degree of a success can be estimated from the level of failures preceding it.

Well in case of the ATV propulsion, wasn't there 3 reactor design attempt failures in 1976, 1979 and 1981 - prior to the current design getting implemented?
Also almost on all steps,

from graduating from low to medium level enrichment (Apsara etc) to high-level enrichment
to problems in fabricating the containment vessel
to mastering control-rod insertion (and withdrawal)
to Aluminum clad uranium fuel elements (in Cirus and Dhruva) or even zircaloy clad uranium dioxide elements (for PHWR in NFC Hyderabad)

etc etc were faced and overcome over decades of painstakingly hard work by the SDREs.

This in itself would be clear pointer about the success of indigenous effort wrt this, Russian help etc not-withstanding).

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Nov 2015 16:54

Maitya,

There are two phases in the ATV project. The first phase started 1976 and reached a dead end around 1995-8. That is when Vishnu Bhagwat wanted a technology audit. While he was fired, the entire project was revamped and restarted around that time frame.

While the reactor wasn't screwdrivered, there was significant Russian assistance including design input in designing a new reactor 1998/9 onwards.

I do not have the facts in hand to be able to quantify, but I do not agree with you on the "overcome" part, the project was at a dead end like Kaveri by 1995-8, which is why Vishnu Bhagwat wanted a technical audit done. He wouldn't have asked for an audit if the project was smooth sailing.

These two new articles are the closest it gets to the truth

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/05/27/stor ... 480100.htm

The nuclear submarine project remains one of the most closely held secrets in the defence establishment. Initiated in 1976, two years after India's first nuclear test, the submarine was to have been based on a Charlie-I class Soviet submarine. Over the years, however, the Defence Research and Development Organisation and the Department of Atomic Energy faced an uphill struggle with the problems of miniaturising the reactor, providing it suitable containment and merging it with the hull. Assistance from Russia, however, is believed to have helped in the resolution of several of these problems. Some years ago, the Russian Defence Ministry newspaper, Krasnaya Zvezda, reported that Moscow was helping India build a submarine hull for the ATV and in fitting it with a nuclear reactor. The report challenged previous statements by Russian officials that their country was not involved in the ATV project. India, however, has never offered any comment on this issue — or, indeed, on the very existence of the project.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 25929.html

The failure to produce a submarine had in 1998 piqued then navy chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat to call for a technical audit. Considerable Russian design assistance that followed the May 1998 nuclear tests breathed new life into the project. Even so, it took the Arihant 15 years from the start of construction to begin sea trials.

While Praveen Swami is not a popular reporter here, his facts are correct, and corroborated by Sandeep Unnithan, who has been accurate in his reporting of the project.

FWIW, Russia also significantly helped overhaul the Chinese nuclear submarine program - their original 1/2 ballistic missile and 4/5 attack submarines were operationally unfit the day they were built.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 17:34

Matheswaran wanted a technical audit of the LCA, does that mean the program was "dead"?

BARCs land reactor is running as is the one on the Arihant.

Folks can believe what they want to, but Russia which wouldn't even give us 300 km+ Brahmos (extrapolations and CTs apart) is now going to be generous with nuclear reactors for ballistic submarines

Russian assistance ("considerable") refers to all the internals - there are huge numbers of items that go into a submarine construction from raw materials to finished items. Those have been supplied by Russian firms who even advertise the same.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Nov 2015 18:51

Karan,

Can you amplify internals?

Do you imply the reactor & hull were ready in 1998 and peripheral "internals" held up the project from 1998 to 2009?

If we had a reactor & hull in 1998, then why wasn't Arihant launched then?

You know we built INS Shalki & Shankul at MDL in the 80's & 90's and have a fair grasp of "internals".

We also have fair idea of Sindhu "internals" since their short refits happen in India in Naval Dockyards. Their USHUS sonars are Indian. Their batteries are built by Exide that is based on German batteries of Type 209 far superior to Russian ones. Other Type 877/636 operators buy Indian batteries instead of Russian ones.

Here is a 2002 news report stating L&T was given the order that year to build the hull http://archive.financialexpress.com/new ... -l&t/53247

If we were ready with the reactor to build the hull before Russian assistance was received in 1999, why didn't we give the hull order to L&T between 1976 to 1999?

Fact remains that there was Russian design assistance in hull & reactor. The project was revamped and restarted in 1998/9 before which it has reached developmental dead end.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 19:23

tsarkar wrote:Karan,

Can you amplify internals?

Just look up the myriad components and raw materials that go into a submarine.. thats where the Russians really came through IMO.

Do you imply the reactor & hull were ready in 1998 and peripheral "internals" held up the project from 1998 to 2009?

If we had a reactor & hull in 1998, then why wasn't Arihant launched then?

Can a submarine only be launched with a reactor & hull?

You know we built INS Shalki & Shankul at MDL in the 80's & 90's and have a fair grasp of "internals".

We also have fair idea of Sindhu "internals" since their short refits happen in India in Naval Dockyards. Their USHUS sonars are Indian. Their batteries are built by Exide that is based on German batteries of Type 209 far superior to Russian ones. Other Type 877/636 operators buy Indian batteries instead of Russian ones.

This is just fanciful stuff.

Almost everything else in those submarines even with refits is Russian/German. All we did in our refits & even TOT assembly was learn the basic assembly & indigenize some minor components. Only in the recent refits have we put in some of our own electronics and have some breakthroughs in metallurgy & sub steel. Unfortunately local replacements for some of the sensors does not unfortunately equal making the submarine. And even for the sensors, we have a long way to go for some key items eg periscopes and other fittings.

With the Scorpene class, we have paid through our nose to get some local fittings with great pressure on DCNS. Even those handful of items are a big deal.

Here is a 2002 news report stating L&T was given the order that year to build the hull http://archive.financialexpress.com/new ... -l&t/53247

If we were ready with the reactor to build the hull before Russian assistance was received in 1999, why didn't we give the hull order to L&T between 1976 to 1999?

So? What does that prove? Why would India place any order to L&T or anyone else till it knew it could make the entire submarine?

Fact remains that there was Russian design assistance in hull & reactor. The project was revamped and restarted in 1998/9 before which it has reached developmental dead end.

Russian assistance/technical review is not equal to providing the designs or making them for India. As regards developmental dead end etc I will wait for better/authoritative sources than the ones you quoted & your inferences.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 16 Nov 2015 20:11

Karan M wrote:.....we have a long way to go for some key items eg periscopes and other fittings.

as to the bolded - DRDO periscopes for subs

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 20:27

Pragnya, excellent news. We have advanced in HUD, IR optics - with some imported FPAs/CCDs.. but a huge step upwards since we are now mature enough to do something like this.

Our challenge is we don't seem to have a national program for component indigenization which is mostly driven by the services (IN is actually pro-active in this regard with fitments) across the board.

We have used our programs to do this - eg LCA, Arjun etc, but there are limitations in terms of timelines for the main part. Develop a torpedo - make every widget from scratch. Make a gun, make everything from scratch.

Going forward, the AMCA program was to be preceded by the TD phase first, but whether its been funded appropriately is a whole different issue.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 16 Nov 2015 20:46

Karan M wrote:Pragnya, excellent news. We have advanced in HUD, IR optics - with some imported FPAs/CCDs.. but a huge step upwards since we are now mature enough to do something like this.

Our challenge is we don't seem to have a national program for component indigenization which is mostly driven by the services (IN is actually pro-active in this regard with fitments) across the board.

not to forget the health monitoring system for subs which is installed on the Arihant. seems DRDO is quietly going after the components answering possibly to what you alluded in the second sentance.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 20:49

For Scorpene:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 53240.html

Last year, Gautam Makker, 42, MD of Flash Forge, tied up with a French firm Coyard that makes marine valves that regulate all the fuel, air and gas supply on board warships and submarines. His foresight was rewarded this June when French submarine maker DCNS and Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) signed a contract of undisclosed value to locally manufacture all the valves, pipes and fittings for the six Scorpene-class submarines being built at the MDL, Mumbai, under a Rs 20,000 crore contract.

Of course, there is some controversy about this gent now and his association with a certain family.

Bigger point is that even here, for marine valves for submarines, we require the entire TOT bijness.

Here is a sample of the kind of stuff Russia gives us for programs like Arihant.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pjIu55Mm4zc/ ... 2BSSBN.JPG

Its not that India couldnt make this on its own. See some electricals here from L&T
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7PbWqhWtQgo/ ... 2BSSBN.jpg
Or this firm http://www.resistoflex.in/ which makes acoustic tiles.

But the funding & limited production runs mean private sector firms won't commit huge resources and park manufacturing facilities for just 1-2 subs at that point.
Add in special alloys, all sorts of marine equipment - valves, tubing, kit which is all unique to SSBN/SSN class and the problem gets magnified.

Then if you choose different suppliers from different firms you wont even be able to coordinate well. We chose Russia and that drives significant cooperation - their designers know their materials and systems best.

We faced the same issue with Arjun and made more within OFB and DPSUs/PSUs. But even there significant items could not be indigenized till follow on programs occurred. Thankfully, we have now got local equivalents for things like the FCS and other items (and/or the design capability). However, with BARCs input we have the critical "heart" of the Arihant class available locally for developing further. That is a key point for us.

In short, sorry to be a wetblanket, but it will take 75I and several Arihant/follow ons before we get all (or mostly) Indian SSBNs bar some critical systems which we would have focused on.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Nov 2015 20:52

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Karan, Can you amplify internals?
Just look up the myriad components and raw materials that go into a submarine.. thats where the Russians really came through IMO.

When you don't have facts, you start confusing. We supposedly designed the most complex parts of a submarine, viz, reactor and hull ourselves, but needed Russians to design some "myriad components" that is equally vague as "internals".

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Do you imply the reactor & hull were ready in 1998 and peripheral "internals" held up the project from 1998 to 2009? If we had a reactor & hull in 1998, then why wasn't Arihant launched then?
Can a submarine only be launched with a reactor & hull?

You see, reactor & hull are the most complex parts of a submarine. As per your topsy turvy logic, we can design the most complex component, viz, reactor, but cannot design or buy from elsewhere less complex "internals" or "myriad components"

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:You know we built INS Shalki & Shankul at MDL in the 80's & 90's and have a fair grasp of "internals". We also have fair idea of Sindhu "internals" since their short refits happen in India in Naval Dockyards. Their USHUS sonars are Indian. Their batteries are built by Exide that is based on German batteries of Type 209 far superior to Russian ones. Other Type 877/636 operators buy Indian batteries instead of Russian ones.
This is just fanciful stuff. Almost everything else in those submarines even with refits is Russian/German. All we did in our refits & even TOT assembly was learn the basic assembly & indigenize some minor components. Only in the recent refits have we put in some of our own electronics. Unfortunately local replacements for some of the sensors does not unfortunately equal making the submarine. And even for the sensors, we have a long way to go for some key items eg periscopes and other fittings. With the Scorpene class, we have paid through our nose to get some local fittings with great pressure on DCNS. Even those handful of items are a big deal.

Karan, the reason I said that we have a fair grasp of submarines is because we don't have to manufacture every fanciful

"internals" or every fanciful

"myriad components".

The ATV project has Material Department, Machine Design Establishment & Machinery Test Centre at Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam to globally source or indigenously build all the components required for a submarine. Each of these units are headed by Admiral ranked officers. Rest assured, these organizations had the ability to source all fanciful

"internals" and all fanciful

"myriad components" well before 1999 and the submarine could've been launched earlier if the reactor or hull was ready.

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Here is a 2002 news report stating L&T was given the order that year to build the hull http://archive.financialexpress.com/new ... -l&t/53247 If we were ready with the reactor to build the hull before Russian assistance was received in 1999, why didn't we give the hull order to L&T between 1976 to 1999?
So? What does that prove? Why would India place any order to L&T or anyone else till it knew it could make the entire submarine?

Again, the point you're making is that we could design complex parts, but could not design or just source simpler parts. This is illogical, as explained earlier

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Fact remains that there was Russian design assistance in hull & reactor. The project was revamped and restarted in 1998/9 before which it has reached developmental dead end.
Russian assistance/technical review is not equal to providing the designs or making them for India. As regards developmental dead end etc I will wait for better/authoritative sources than the ones you quoted & your inferences.

No, I've never said we screwdrivered existing designs. What I said was we received critical design & development inputs on hull & reactor, where we were stuck earlier.

Just putting a reactor in a hull doesn't make a submarine. One either does lots of trial & error like Russians and Americans did in 50s. We realized in 1995/98 that trial and error would be even more time consuming. So we relied on Russian expertise that was available.

Like I earlier said, the Chinese were also deficient in these specific areas. Their nuclear submarines barely went to sea. They too received Russian help the same time as we did.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 20:53

pragnya wrote:
Karan M wrote:Pragnya, excellent news. We have advanced in HUD, IR optics - with some imported FPAs/CCDs.. but a huge step upwards since we are now mature enough to do something like this.

Our challenge is we don't seem to have a national program for component indigenization which is mostly driven by the services (IN is actually pro-active in this regard with fitments) across the board.
not to forget the health monitoring system for subs which is installed on the Arihant. seems DRDO is quietly going after the components answering possibly to what you alluded in the second sentance.

Yes, the Arihants eqpt monitoring being Indian would be a good step forward. IIRC our IPMS for our frontline ships is from Canada.
The CMS (Combat Management Suites) though are Indian showing we do have the capability to develop IPMS type suites too if we put our resources towards them.

When I say national program - I mean away from specific products but general capability build up. US actually tracks sectors and funds accordingly (areas where its lagging). As and when programs are launched, capability exists.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Nov 2015 21:03

Pragnya & Karan, the development of periscope did not hold up ATV project. The Material Department had the ability to source periscopes in 1976.

Similarly, old INS Chakra or new INS Chakra does not have Health Monitoring Systems and IN is happy operating them.

Peripheral systems do not hold up development. Core systems do. Hope you comprehend this simple engineering fact.

ATV was held up because of reactor & hull design issues, that were solved with Russian assistance. Not because of periscopes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 21:16

tsarkar wrote:When you don't have facts, you start confusing. We supposedly designed the most complex parts of a submarine, viz, reactor and hull ourselves, but needed Russians to design some "myriad components" that is equally vague as "internals".

Look who is talking about facts? As I recall you once claimed Arjun's sight doesn't have HK capability, were busy pontificating about Marut & aerodesign & LCA internals and weight compares with Gripen - mine and Maitya's rejoinders to all your previous statements are all available. So we need not agree on all points and kindly stick to a civil discussion. Kindly provide facts and details.

We supposedly designed the most complex parts of a submarine, viz, reactor and hull ourselves, but needed Russians to design some "myriad components" that is equally vague as "internals"

Has it struck you that every nation focuses on certain denied systems as versus reverse engineering each and every system? And that success & failure also depends on the capability of the team in question. BARC's capabilities are well established. India's ancillary suppliers & only in fits and spurts through the 1990s and we still rely on many imports.

As regards internals, with the amount of data available, am I supposed to waste my time telling you about all the parts that go into a submarine, which you clearly know about but are just trying to engage in rhetoric?

Here India is busy getting TOT to build a few parts for the Scorpene & Mazagaon DL had a tough time even locating other manufacturers, and yes, Arihant is very easy.

tsarkar wrote:You see, reactor & hull are the most complex parts of a submarine. We can design the most complex component, viz, reactor, but cannot design or buy from elsewhere less complex "internals" or "myriad components"

Because we thats where we had focused our resources and had prior capability with BARC and local industry which can even make nuclear reactors.
The RBTH blog claimed India got reactors (

) & theres a huge difference between getting some technical consultancy & doing the rest on your own as versus imports or TOT.

India concentrated all its resources in the LCA on the National Claw Team, which along with ADE had the capability to overcome US sanctions & support drop for the FBW. However, it still relies on imported radars since HAL's original team was not upto the task, the program was poorly managed and LRDE's experience in the time was limited. So is, making a fighter control radar is more complex than a FBW system. Context matters.

tsarkar wrote:You see, Karan, the reason I said that we have a fair grasp of submarines is because we don't have to manufacture every fanciful "internals" or every fanciful "myriad components".

In short, you have no data to actually back up your fanciful assertions of being able to make submarine subsystems in depth and are left clutching at claims of making batteries and a sonar here, sonar there. A tile here. A valve there.

Go on, show us the systems fit for a Kilo Type and a Shishumar and tell us how much of it comes from within India. 40%? 35% 80%.

bring the facts...I'd sure like to see the above. Even in 1990 our submarines basically had modified Swedish batteries which went onto Exide etc.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=1Wx ... ia&f=false

The ATV project has Material Department, Machine Design Establishment & Machinery Test Centre at Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam to globally source or indigenously build all the components required for a submarine. Each of these units are headed by Admiral ranked officers. Rest assured, these organizations had the ability to source all fanciful "internals" and all fanciful "myriad components" well before 1999 and the submarine could've been launched earlier if the reactor or hull was ready.

So subsystems are somehow going to be magically available because, wait for it, Admiral Ranked Officers (oh golly gawsh!) are available to head 3 centers and "globally source" or "indigenously build" all components required for a submarine. A nuclear submarine, when we have international pressure on India to not even launch ballistic missiles and have to jump through hoops to make things on our own.

Here is the hard reality as versus fanciful claims of this magic, that magic for our non strategic segment.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 148467.cms

According to a study conducted by Navy, India has achieved an indigenisation of 90 per cent in the float segment. In the move segment, India has achieved 60 per cent of indigenisation and just 30-40 per cent in the fight segment.

Oh shoot. So we are good at the float segment i.e. hull manufacture. Somewhat ok at the move, but this with multiple ship types under production & huge foreign assistance for key items like gearboxes etc at Walchandnagar which are classified as "indigenization" when they are basically TOT. Which of course doesn't apply to the Arihant since its a strategic program.

So kindly bring the data.

tsarkar wrote:Again, the point you're making is that we could design complex parts, but could not design simpler parts. This is illogical, as explained earlier

"Simpler parts" are merely your interpretation & there is ample experience in India in the nuclear segment thanks to BARC & ancillary suppliers & there was a focus on them from day one. The rest, not so much. Any non available system can delay the whole program or render it unserviceable. Even truly simpler parts.
Such as tyres for Su-30s.

tsarkar wrote:No, I've never said we screwdrivered existing designs. What I said was we received critical design & development inputs on hull & reactor, where we were stuck earlier.

My view is that we were not stuck merely on the hull & reactor as you state, but our entire submarine manufacturing capability was trundling including & especially viz submarine subsystems. By 1998, the program was put on a fast track which meant whatever we did not have or would have otherwise taken too much time, was then sourced from proven Russian firms with the right expertise. We would have done the hull & reactor eventually, at best Russian help accelerated it, but it was the rest of the items plus the time factor (e.g. fuel availability) which was critical.

Just putting a reactor in a hull doesn't make a submarine. One either does lots of trial & error like Russians and Americans did in 50s. We realized in 1995/98 that trial and error would be even more time consuming. So we relied on Russian expertise that was available. Like I earlier said, the Chinese were also deficient in these specific areas. Their nuclear submarines barely went to sea. They too received Russian help the same time as we did.

Now you have authoritative & factual data on China as well? You are welcome to your conclusions I will wait for someone from the BARC or associated with the program itself before drawing such inferences. My view is that with or without Russian assistance BARC had the capability to do what it did , was well on its way & the assistance truly counted in opening up the Arihant to Russia's proven system suppliers whose systems are within the boat.

..edited for gazillion typos.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 21:25

tsarkar wrote:Pragnya & Karan, the development of periscope did not hold up ATV project. The Material Department had the ability to source periscopes in 1976.

Similarly, old INS Chakra or new INS Chakra does not have Health Monitoring Systems and IN is happy operating them.

Peripheral systems do not hold up development. Core systems do. Hope you comprehend this simple engineering fact.

ATV was held up because of reactor & hull design issues, that were solved with Russian assistance. Not because of periscopes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

Repeating the same thing over and over again is not equivalent to evidence. Facts are that the reactor & hull are Indian. The peripherals not so much (please show us the evidence otherwise since it contradicts all data for even the non strategic segment). That itself speaks for itself.

PS: There are no "peripherals" in something like the Arihant or a submarine. Everything will go together & has to be customized. Any delay on one side will delay everything.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 16 Nov 2015 21:27

tsarkar wrote:Pragnya & Karan, the development of periscope did not hold up ATV project. The Material Department had the ability to source periscopes in 1976.

Similarly, old INS Chakra or new INS Chakra does not have Health Monitoring Systems and IN is happy operating them.

Peripheral systems do not hold up development. Core systems do. Hope you comprehend this simple engineering fact.

ATV was held up because of reactor & hull design issues, that were solved with Russian assistance. Not because of periscopes.

tsarkar,

my post has nothing to do with your debate with Karan. it was specific to some components DRDO is engaged in for present/future needs.

also wrt to Arihant wrt russians - see below.

Asked whether the Russians helped in designing and building the PWR, Kakodkar, Banerjee and Basu were emphatic that BARC developed it on its own. Banerjee said: “The Russians were consultants. The consultancy was done for the whole submarine, not for the power part alone.” Basu asserted, “Everything is totally indigenous [in this PWR]…. We developed it. It is our own reactor. We did not take it from anybody else.”

M.R. Srinivasan, former AEC Chairman, was also emphatic that the DAE developed the reactor on its own. While building the reactor “was always a part of the DAE’s activity”, the Navy’s role was to design and build the submarine, he said. So it was a joint DAE-Navy project. Srinivasan said, “The naval personnel had some assistance from Russia in designing the submarine, but the reactor is a totally Indian effort. The reactor, its components including the pressure vessels, and its fuel were made in India by Indian industry.”

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 21:36

^^ Oh my goodness. The liars at BARC. Now I guess it will be "they took assistance but cannot admit it". Or wait for it.

Banerjee said: “The Russians were consultants. The consultancy was done for the whole submarine, not for the power part alone.

This will be in bold ignoring everything else (but the reactor is a totally Indian effort. The reactor, its components including the pressure vessels, and its fuel were made in India by Indian industry.”)... including the fact that anyone would realize the Russians gave the same sort of "assistance" they have given for other programs in the past (including the BMD, there I said it

) but we made the reactor on our own & its actually in the ancillaries we remain heavily dependent on them?

I mean FFS, is it that hard to realize even our capital ships are not indigenized since local capability and low build volumes are an issue?? And that same issue would be 100x for a strategic submarine.

Or the claim hey from 19xxx-2000x it was x component, y hull, z reactor which held up the ATV, hush, hush when folks actually in the know about the program won't talk about it, let alone claim Russia did this, or that on a public forum.

Here are the facts as I see them - those claiming otherwise can have their own personal views or bring verifiable, credible open source data from authoritative sources to contradict the same

India took Russian consultancy for the entire submarine. We managed to do the basic design, reactor, hull etc on our own to a large degree based on our existing shipbuilding skills and capability (eg BARC with nuclear reactors) since Russia too is bound by international agreements it has signed. This consultancy as versus outright transfer of design & detail knowledge was valuable but we have advanced in key areas especially reactor technology.

Where we continue to be heavily reliant on Russia for (at least with Arihant 1) situation may have changed thereafter, were all the other items Russia helped out with as clearly mentioned in the prior pic (just one of several firms involved).

Here is the Naval Indigenization Plan. Look through the whole thing and see the gamut of items required that go into a ship, let alone a submarine. I'll call it "internals" - HAL calls similar items for its aircraft, accessories and fitments. Anyone would know their criticality, given how even actuators are essential for something like the LCA. Folks actually interested in the topic can see for themselves.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/ ... 030%29.pdf

Fact of the matter & I stand by this. If India needs more subs of any nuclear type, its the hull & reactor where we have max local design & fabrication capability - whereas the accessories & internals, are where we should be focusing for indigenization.

Pragnya, the earlier link about the BITE system you cited may be on the Arihant already:
While the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Kochi, contributed sensors to Arihant, special acoustics were done by the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL), Visakhapatnam. Other DRDO laboratories developed “the submarine’s control systems, not the entire systems, but certain modules,” said Natarajan.

Even so:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pjIu55Mm4zc/ ... 2BSSBN.JPG

11 control systems for Arihant are from Russia. The same firm which supplies Kilo class units & many other systems. In short, our agreement with Russia gave us access to firms like these with huge prior expertise & willingness to work with us for limited build orders based on strategic requirement. This is also of an order of magnitude less than (say) giving us BM tech or reactor tech but is critical in its own way. Who else would give us this?

And this is why Russia - so far -remains invaluable to Indian defense.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2015 23:13

And this is how the media builds sh!t up. Jyoti Malhotra (yes the same dame you see wagging on the TV raging against indoo fascist PM and poor Pakistan) is now an expert on nuclear submarines - she mixes and matches stuff from news sites even when she gets actual quotes from people working on it.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 745_1.html

The Arihant's 83Mw pressurised water reactor (PWR) has also been built with considerable assistance from the Russians, who are said to have helped scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in miniaturising the reactor to fit into the 10m diameter hull of the nuclear submarine.

Note the said to have.. basically no data or proof. This when the actual data is below.

"We have used the Russians as consultants. As far as efforts in designing, developing and maintaining the reactor are concerned, they are entirely ours," BARC director Srikumar Banerjee said at the time.

So BARC designs, runs it by the Russians, they give some "hints and suggestions - areas to focus on (eg test for this, this, its sufficient)", BARC does the rest & the actual heavy lifting. Russians also help with raw material, alloys etc, but its upto to us to make use of them.

Standard consultancy, viz LCA, Arjun and many other programs. Only reason this takes a seperate hue is the "Strategic" aspect.

And note the rest.

India's private sector helped out the $2.9-billion project in significant ways. The hull for the vessel was built by L&T's Hazira shipbuilding facility, Tata Power built the control systems for the submarine, while the systems for the steam turbine integrated with the reactor are supplied by Walchandnagar Industries, reported DNA newspaper in 2009.

Almost zero mention of all the other myriad systems that go into a submarine. The Tata Power system in all likelihood is the control unit for the propulsion. In short Indian IP.

In other words we "indigenized" the most critical parts - the nuclear propulsion & hull, as that is what is most subject to international laws & denial.

And where was the program sped up?

By 1998, Atal Behari Vajpayee's government had taken power, gone nuclear and announced its no-first-use nuclear policy. After the Kargil conflict in 1999, this was further refined when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced its intention to build the nuclear triad to its logical conclusion. The ATV project got a big boost at this time, when in November 2003, the miniaturised nuclear reactor went critical inside a simulated submarine hull (seeking to replicate Arihant conditions) on land at Kalpakkam.

In short when the GOI of the day decided enough was enough with dilly daddling on such critical programs and opened its purse.

As to the BARC effort, bits and pieces
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... rihant.htm

The nuclear and space programmes are controlled directly by the Prime Minister’s Office; it took time nonetheless due to the political dynamics of the country. Finally, in 1983, she gave her blessings, and funds, to the PRP project and entrusted its execution to Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Chairman Dr HN Sethna and BARC Director Dr Raja Ramanna, who directed the 1974 PNE test.

The team included Messrs VK Mehra, RB Grover, RS Yadav and S Basu - the current head of BARC - under US and France trained atomic scientist Dr Anil K Anand. In his just published autobiography Second Strike, Dr Anand has included some details of the work by the New Reactor Projects Division; he was a colleague of Dr Anil Kakodkar at BARC. Over the years, Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and AB Vajpayee and Defence Minister George Fernandes lent full support to the project.

The Half Submarine

Dr Anand studied zircaloy joints and tubes and calandria ends in France’s Pressure Water Reactors (PWR) at the Centre Energy Atomique at Scalay near Paris in Section des Advances, for the French EL-4 PWR reactor at Brennilis and learnt the techniques that helped him at BARC. Dr Homi Bhabha, Chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), was keen for this technology, and the PRP model was used later to build the land based half training nuclear submarine under the classified Advanced technology Vehicle (ATV) Project. Dr Anand’s knowledge was useful.

Dr Anand relates he was interviewed by late Dr Vikarm Sarabhai for the BARC job and he recalls meeting Dr Homi Bhabha.

The near culmination of the submarine project – India’s first nuclear powered nuclear armed submarine Arihant (SSBN) is just about to go for sea trials – is a handsome tribute to the naval planners, atomic scientists, designers and builders. It has taken long but the fact that the submarine project, which includes the vessels, their reactors, some sophisticated onboard systems and nuclear-tipped missiles are just about ready, is a landmark achievement.

The BARC team under Dr Anand designed and built the half submarine with a miniature reactor (S-1) for training at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. This went critical on November 11, 2003 and operational on September 22, 2006. Its replica is the Arihant’s 80 MW pressured Uranium, U-235 light water reactor. U-235 is enriched uranium.

Arihant has been designated S-2 while the second submarine in the class, Aridhaman, which is also under construction, is designated S-3.

Dates of project execution are detailed in the book. The challenge ashore was to make a dynamo meter to absorb the power which is used in a submarine to power the propeller. No nation easily shares these details and nuclear technologies. The fuel rods and pellets for the reactor and cladding were engineered by Dr Anand from imported Uranium (from Russia) and Indian oxides. Marine reactors are peaceful nuclear facilities, and outside IAEA safeguards.

In short, Russia's "substantial effort" again followed international law. They supplied material for the land based reactor, but BARC did the heavy lifting & in all likelihood the actual sub reactor (given how pedantic even India is about being lawful) was likely sourced from the plant in India (anyone who tracks the program would know which one from published sources alone).

The point is thanks to L&T, BARC etc, its the hull & reactor where we today have the maximum local control.

Rest of the fitments will come as they will come.

http://www.barc.gov.in/presentations/fddir09.pdf

Launching of Arihant

As you all know, the nuclear submarine Arihant has been launched by India in
August this year. BARC had a significant role in this major project. The steam
generating plant of this submarine was designed, developed and built by BARC.

The
compact Pressurised Water Reactor was designed for this purpose with several special
features;such as, very quick response for power ramping, extremely stable under ship
motions and resistance against exposure to very high acceleration, resulting from
eventual depth charges. Since the nuclear reactor is fuelled with high fissile containing
fuel, it can supply energy in the submerged condition for an extended period without
refueling. Many systems and equipment designed and built were first of its kind in the
country. The entire steam generating plant has been designed to give highly reliable
offshore operation in a completely isolated environment. Control and instrumentation
design is fault tolerant and requires minimum operator interventions. An elaborate
diagnostic system enables a very high availability factor. Many new materials and
technologies have been developed and new infrastructure has been created for this
project. The development of the steam generating plant of Arihant was preceded by
setting up of the land based prototype system at Kalpakkam known as PRP. The
reactor in PRP has been working since last three years and has served as a technology
demonstrator for the compact pressurized water reactor-with a load following capability.
This has proved several design features including fuel performance and established the
reliability of various systems and equipment. The entire propulsion plant with primary, secondary, electrical and propulsion system along with its integrated control was packed in the aft end of a land based submarine hull designed and built specifically for this purpose. This prototype
is serving as a training centre for the crew for the nuclear submarine. The crew training is further facilitated with the help of an
indigenously designed and built full scope simulator. With the successful development
of compact pressurized water reactor, BARC has ushered in the field of PWR technology in the country. In future, the
experience gained in this project will go a long way in the indigenous
development
of an Indian
Pressurised
Water
Reactor system for large scale electricity generation. This landmark
achievement
has been possible due to a sustained team work by a group of dedicated
engineers and scientists in our centre.
In the uranium enrichment programme, we have succeeded in improving the
separating work' unit of gas centrifuges manifold. The production capacity has also
been substantially enhanced to meet the requirement.
About
1.1
MT of low enriched uranium has been processed by liquid-liquid
blending. The material is converted into nuclear fuel bundles for irradiation testing in
PHWRs