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.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4082
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 11 Dec 2017 17:26

Philip wrote:We've less potential enemies! Around 5-6 sub-launched BMs with 3 MIRVs each BM will give us between 120-180 warheads , plus I think a substantial no. of road/ rail mobile BMs too.This is other than air-launched LRCMs, etc.


I don't get this logic. We'd want to build as much second strike capability as possible, considering the size and number of our adversaries. I'd assume we'd prepare for the worst case scenario in that we'd look at countries that could turn adversarial. Therefore, carrying fewer missiles compared to other subs of similar displacement doesn't seem sound strategy. I was hoping that our true boomer would carry atleast 16, similar to Triomphant and Vanguard classes.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Dec 2017 17:28

If our 7000 tonne S-3, S-4 and S-4* are carrying in 8 SLBM's of K-4 class, the 13000 SSBN will definately have 12-16 K-6 SLBM's.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Will » 11 Dec 2017 20:19

Aditya_V wrote:If our 7000 tonne S-3, S-4 and S-4* are carrying in 8 SLBM's of K-4 class, the 13000 SSBN will definately have 12-16 K-6 SLBM's.


Sure hope the S-5 will carry 16 K-6 SLBM's. Its the norm for SSBN's around the world. Its high time we did some forward thinking. Today the threats might seem just the Chinks and the Paki's. Tomorrow as the Indian economy grows there will be many more threats that will emerge. Keep in mind that gestation times for equipment like nuke subs. The S-5 will only come in the next decade. India will be a 7 trillion economy by then. Doesn't make sense to wait and then decide that we need submarines with more missiles. One thing we can be thankful for is that Chidambaram had the sense to question why the Arihant can carry only 4 K-4's. 4 single warhead SLBM's don't spell total destruction for China and doesn't put the fear up their backsides. 16 MIRVed SLBMS will surely put that fear up their backsides. One thing that we should have learnt by now is that the Chinese only respect strength. If not they will trample all over you.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Dec 2017 22:56

I have a basic question on this latest Sandeep Unnithan report. What makes this report more accurate than some others in the recent past that have directly contradicted on some key items mentioned in the report, especially as it relates to the nuclear plant? The very name of the sub is different. I will discount the news on S5+ and its dimensions or number of silos as early days. I think we have to go back and look at some original sources to see what we have from the various reports collate and x-check the information on who said what, what is verifiable and what may be conjecture or indeed misinformation, as one would expect. The one thing that keeps bothering me is the reported size of the Arihant and its reported power plant output and on top of all this the claim that the same or an uprated power plant will power the SSN too.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Vivek K » 12 Dec 2017 00:07

Hmm so if this is the Arighat, where is the Aridhaman? Already in the water? Can one tell the difference between the Arihant and the Aridhaman visually?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2423
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby tsarkar » 12 Dec 2017 00:49

Vivek K wrote:Can the Akulas be taken to war under the terms of the lease?


http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=158689

The Indian Navy’s Annual Theatre Level Readiness and Operational Exercise (TROPEX 17) was conducted on the Western Seaboard from 24 Jan 17 till 23 Feb 17. The month long exercise saw participation of over 45 ships from both the Western and Eastern Naval Commands of the Indian Navy, including the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, 05 submarines including the nuclear powered Chakra, 50 Naval aircraft, 11 ships from the Coast Guard, troops from the Army and 20 aircraft from the Air Force including Su 30s, Jaguars and AWACS.


https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/indian- ... -exercise/

The exercise involves practicing various anti-submarine warfare scenarios with Indian diesel-electric attack submarines standing in for People’s Liberation Army Navy and Pakistan Navy submarines. According to local media reports, the INS Chakra, a Russian-made Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, has been hunting “enemy” submarines 200 kilometers off Goa’s coast for the past few days.

The Indian Navy is also deploying its most advanced maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft, the P-8I Neptune, to support the INS Chakra and track submarines during the exercise.


INS Chakra is under no restrictions.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 001500.cms

"The high-point of the exercise was Large Force Engagement (LFE) by the Fleet units against threat simulated by air element from Indian Air Force comprising AWACS, SU 30s, Jaguars and IL 78 (AAR). These threats emanated from different directions and were neutralised by using Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile capabilities of MiG 29Ks, the integral air arm of the Indian Navy, operating from INS Vikramaditya in coordination with other Fleet units," said the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in a statement.


MiG-29K too is fully operational now as corroborated by the report above. ROE has invested in setting up a spares depot for MiG-29K and Ka-31 near Karwar - one can see it next to the highway from Ankola to Karwar.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby ramana » 12 Dec 2017 00:56

Vivek K wrote:Hmm so if this is the Arighat, where is the Aridhaman? Already in the water? Can one tell the difference between the Arihant and the Aridhaman visually?



Second boat INS Arighat. Name changed from previous one.

Next one onwards will be 8 tubes class.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2423
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby tsarkar » 12 Dec 2017 01:08

Vivek K wrote:Hmm so if this is the Arighat, where is the Aridhaman? Already in the water? Can one tell the difference between the Arihant and the Aridhaman visually?

PC wanted a stretch for the second submarine. However since hull sections from L&T and reactor from BARC to original specifications were already ready, the third submarine was built to original specs and finished faster than second stretch submarine that required newer parts to be built.

So 3rd has become 2nd and 2nd delayed to 3rd.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby ramana » 12 Dec 2017 01:46

mody wrote:The article by SU, says the INS Chakra is non-operational since August (not sure 2016 or '17?). He mentions due to some incident.
Does anyone have any info on this?

The Arighat getting launched and K4 test from pontoon planned for December and if that succeeds, then from Arihant next are the big news from the article.

The Arighat launch was not covered by the media at all or more likely, MoD and PMO did not want it to be covered by the Media. SU is the first one to report on this.
Within 2 years S2 and S3 will be prowling the Bay of Bengal.


Yes, the sonar dome scraped the entrance channel or so its thought. All this is covered in the IN thread.

Arighat is Ardhiman name changed.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3107
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Dec 2017 06:15

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:


MiG-29K too is fully operational now as corroborated by the report above. ROE has invested in setting up a spares depot for MiG-29K and Ka-31 near Karwar - one can see it next to the highway from Ankola to Karwar.

So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 12 Dec 2017 06:25

The flawed procurement policy in the MOD a major factor along with poorly drawn up deals.Late orders for spares across the board-take Scorpenes components,etc. This problem has been well discussed in other tds., still being debated in the IAF td.

As mentioned many times during the last yr., Sov/Ru products are being supported by new local support JV entities which have been set up with Indian partners.Western wares supported by R co., Tata etc.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby shaun » 12 Dec 2017 07:50

Cain Marko wrote:
tsarkar wrote:

So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

Not appropriate place to discuss , posted a reply in Indian navy thread.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shaun » 12 Dec 2017 08:27

Cain Marko wrote:So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

As discussed before too , Mig 29K came as "package " with acquisition of Gorshkov . The a/c have teething problem with engines and is not fully ruggedized for carrier operation .

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/08/04/indian-navy-wants-russian-mig-29k-jets-to-be-ruggedized/
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.

“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said.

“There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added.

The service did not enter into a contract for automatic maintenance of the aircraft with the Russians while purchasing the MiG-29K fighter aircraft in 2004 and 2010 for $2.2 billion.

“Today they are fully dependent on Russia for all major support issues,” an Indian Ministry of Defence official said of the Navy. “The Indian MoD has taken up the matter with the Russians on several occasions. Though the Russians have sent their technical teams, no solution has been forthcoming.”

However, Anastasia Kravchenkov, a representative of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, said in official correspondence: “Neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircrafts.”

Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”

According to the MoD official, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is of little help in this situation: “Without approval of design authority, it is difficult to go in for any modification.”

HAL is currently seeking funds from the Navy for the maintenance and overhaul of 113 engines including spares.

According to the MoD official, the government would prefer an agreement involving the Navy, Russia and HAL to undertake structural improvements for the MiG-29K fighters.

The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier.

“After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

A report last year by India’s autonomous auditing agency, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, said the MiG-29K was to be technically accepted despite discrepancies and anomalies.

“Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engine MiG-29K fighters have been withdrawn from service due to design-related defects,” according to the report.

Early last year, the Indian Navy entered the global market to procure 57 multirole fighters to be used on future aircraft carriers, essentially rejecting the MiG-29K fighters.

Although companies have already shown interest in India’s request for information — the United States’ Boeing with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; France’s Dassault with its Rafale M, Sweden’s Saab with its Gripen Maritime and Russia‘s MiG-29K — a formal tender to kick-start the acquisition process for a new fighter aircraft is yet to be issued.

Officials from the Indian Navy and the MoD would not comment on the fate of the purchase program.

[url]https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10000-crore-mistake-auditor-fails-navys-main-fighter-jet-mig-29-1437329
[/url]

10,000-Crore Mistake? Auditor Fails Navy's Main Fighter Jet, MiG-29

NEW DELHI:

The navy's ambition to have a formidable presence far away from the Indian coastline rests largely on one fighter jet - the MiG-29K bought from Russia. And according to the state's national auditor, it's working so poorly that it's hardly available for use.

In a scathing report submitted to parliament two days ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG, which has audited the Navy's MiG-29 programme, says that "The MiG-29K, which is a carrier-borne multi-role aircraft and the mainstay of integral fleet air defence, is riddled with problems" including engine malfunctions which means that in "a best case scenario, a MiG-29 jet will be fully fit for operations less than 50 per cent of the time it is required to be deployed."

India has acquired 45 of these fighter jets for nearly 10,500 crores in 2004 and 2010. The jet, which is deployed on India's formidable warship the INS Vikramaditya, is also meant to be the front-line fighter for the carrier Vikrant, which is being built in Kochi, and possibly the Vishal, a third aircraft carrier still at the design stage.

The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.

Nor has the MiG-29 been able to fare acceptably during the violent process of landing on the tiny deck of an aircraft carrier. Restrained upon touchdown by an arrestor hook which snags a wire on the deck of the Vikramaditya, the MiG-29K has encountered several component failures. The CAG report adds that "defects had occurred despite numerous design improvements and modifications" and the recurring problems were "having an adverse impact on Indian Navy pilots training."

Speaking to NDTV, senior Navy officers admit that there are no quick-fix solutions to the litany of problems with its frontline fighter. They say they had little say in the choice of aircraft they purchased since the MiG-29K was bought as part of a "package deal" which included the transfer and refurbishment of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov which the Navy has re-christened the INS Vikramaditya.

They say a team of engineers of the Russian manufacturer are stationed in Goa where the jets are based (when they aren't deployed on the aircraft carrier) working to resolve all the technical issues which have crept up.

Senior officers also point out the India is the first operator to induct the MiG-29K - even ahead of the Russian Navy. They say overcoming teething problems for new platforms is a time-consuming issue, but there's no need for major concern because Russia has also decided to replace its carrier-borne Sukhoi fighters with the same MiG-29K.

The Russians, Indian Navy sources grudgingly tell us, will no doubt benefit from the Indian experience of rectifying recurrent snags on what will become their own front-line naval fighter aircraft.

Indian Navy wants its only fighter aircraft to toughen up
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-navy-fighter-aircraft-mig-29k-russia-india-military-ties/1/1003125.html

MiG-29K fighter planes face operational deficiencies: CAG report
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/mig-29k-fighter-planes-face-operational-deficiencies-cag-report/articleshow/53400918.cms

salaam
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby salaam » 12 Dec 2017 08:39

So with all the confusion in naming. Reactor power discussion. Stretch or bigger hump. 8 K4 or 12 K6. This is where we stand now.

S1 - POC reactor
S2 - Arihant - 7000T - 8 K4 - commissioned
S3 - Aridhaman* - 9000T* - 12 K4* - outfitting
S4 - Arighat - 7000T - 8 K4 - launched
S5/S6 - Anirudh*/Animesh* - 13T - 12 K6* - being built

* - fanboy jingo made up nonsense

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Philip » 12 Dec 2017 09:25

You've forgotten S-4+.The one with a slightly larger missile that will appear as std on the second series.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2423
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby tsarkar » 12 Dec 2017 10:09

Cain Marko wrote:So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

Responded in Indian Navy thread.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby mody » 12 Dec 2017 18:29

salaam wrote:So with all the confusion in naming. Reactor power discussion. Stretch or bigger hump. 8 K4 or 12 K6. This is where we stand now.

S1 - POC reactor
S2 - Arihant - 7000T - 8 K4 - commissioned
S3 - Aridhaman* - 9000T* - 12 K4* - outfitting
S4 - Arighat - 7000T - 8 K4 - launched
S5/S6 - Anirudh*/Animesh* - 13T - 12 K6* - being built

* - fanboy jingo made up nonsense

Not Quite.
The actual picture is:
S1 - Land Based Test Reactor
S2 - Arihant - 12 BO5 or 4 K4 Missile or a mix of both, like 6 BO5 and 2 K4 etc. Total 4 tubes. Can accommodate 3 BO5 per tube or 1 K4.
Status: Currently operational with 12 BO5.
S3 - Arighat - Same as Arihant. Status: Launched. Will be operational in about 2 years.
S4 - Aridhaman or new name. Will have 8 tubes. Each tube can accommodate 1 K4 or 3 BO5 missiles.
S4* - Same as S4. Might come with K5 missiles instead of K4.
S5 - Planned with K5 or K6 missiles. 12 Tubes. 13.5K Tons. Speculation only currently as no work has been started and no designs made.

What is important to note from the SU article is that the payload fro both K4 and K5 is given as 2 Tons and 3 Tons for the proposed K6.
A single 2 Ton warhead for K4 or K5 is highly unlikely. Both these missiles will eventually have 3-5 MIRV warheads.
Offcourse no one really knows the real and latest size of the Indian petals.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby A Deshmukh » 12 Dec 2017 19:24

to add to above (as per the article):
S5 x 3 SSBNs
plus S6 x 6 SSNs (approved)

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5340
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Supratik » 12 Dec 2017 20:41

I will stick my neck out and say that the Arihant carries the K4 - may or may not be MIRVed. K15 has no strategic use given its range and maybe a TD.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Aditya G » 12 Dec 2017 20:46

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Hmm so if this is the Arighat, where is the Aridhaman? Already in the water? Can one tell the difference between the Arihant and the Aridhaman visually?

PC wanted a stretch for the second submarine. However since hull sections from L&T and reactor from BARC to original specifications were already ready, the third submarine was built to original specs and finished faster than second stretch submarine that required newer parts to be built.

So 3rd has become 2nd and 2nd delayed to 3rd.


So Arighat is S-4 and Aridhaman is S-3 :eek:

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4082
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 12 Dec 2017 21:30

A Deshmukh wrote:to add to above (as per the article):
S5 x 3 SSBNs
plus S6 x 6 SSNs (approved)


Where did you see this? Do you have any details about it, like displacement, number of missiles etc.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5340
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Supratik » 12 Dec 2017 21:43

It is classified but Navy chief has commented recently that work has started.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4082
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 12 Dec 2017 21:48

Supratik wrote:It is classified but Navy chief has commented recently that work has started.


You mean design work has started? Because even work on S5 is yet to start.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5340
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Supratik » 12 Dec 2017 22:18

He just stated it has started and he can't comment further as it is classified.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4082
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Karthik S » 12 Dec 2017 22:20

OK thanks.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Will » 12 Dec 2017 22:38

So if S4 is going to be 8 tubes then S4* will most probably be 12 tubes keeping in mind reports that say that the S4* is going to be a stretched version and a bridge between the S4 and the S5 class. Sure hope the S5 will be 16 tubes.

But if the S4 is just 4 tubes then the s4* will most probably just be 8 tubes. Keeping in mind the difficulty in designing a more powerful reactor I guess the S4 will be the same as the Arihant and the Arighat.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby vasu raya » 12 Dec 2017 23:00

Wonder at which S-number they would transition to 12 meter high launch tubes, the S4* or S5? would like to see stacked Brahmos or Nirbhay someday

and if the only SSN is in the dock who is helping out the Arighat in its trials?

none of my business I know :-)
Last edited by vasu raya on 12 Dec 2017 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5340
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Supratik » 12 Dec 2017 23:05

S4* difference maybe due to carrying K5 rather than K4 and not due to larger number of tubes. Will get clarity with time.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 326
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby maz » 13 Dec 2017 00:10

"the third submarine was built to original specs and finished faster than second stretch submarine...."

Is the 3rd boat built to the longer design or the shorter design? In other words, does 'original specs' imply the stretched design?

salaam
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby salaam » 13 Dec 2017 04:15

Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 738
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby prasannasimha » 13 Dec 2017 18:09

According to older reports Aridhaman was already in the docks when there was a death due to malfunction of the dock gates. Possibly the third sub was finished earlier than the Aridhaman. However with the amount of opaqeness I bet the actual things are different. Remember even Arihant was declared operational much later and K4 was already tested multiple times before an actual announcement was made. Also see the Agni 5 announcement in perspective. Probably to pre-empt any mischief by lizard in winter at Doklam ?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2423
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby tsarkar » 13 Dec 2017 18:58

maz wrote:"the third submarine was built to original specs and finished faster than second stretch submarine...."

Is the 3rd boat built to the longer design or the shorter design? In other words, does 'original specs' imply the stretched design?


As per my understanding, the 3rd boat is built to original short design of INS Arihant. The second boat is being stretched.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 738
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby prasannasimha » 13 Dec 2017 19:52

Kurup has plotted another navarea warning which may be significant

Image

nash
BRFite
Posts: 746
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby nash » 13 Dec 2017 21:15

salaam wrote:Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6


As per your Note:

S2 & S3 - 4 Silo - will be Arihant Class submarine.
S4 & s4*- 8 Silo - will be Aridman Class submarine.
S5 (3) - 12 Silo.

salaam
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby salaam » 13 Dec 2017 22:07

nash wrote:
salaam wrote:Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6


As per your Note:

S2 & S3 - 4 Silo - will be Arihant Class submarine.
S4 & s4*- 8 Silo - will be Aridman Class submarine.
S5 (3) - 12 Silo.


Notes section is just meant to denote the missile contents of each silo for various class built/being_built/planned.
- Arihant/Arighat/Aridman each silo content are `three K15 (B05 - Sagarika)` or `one K4` (Sagarika use is kinda declared, K4 is nudge nudge wink wink)
- S4* each silo content are `one K5` (planned)
- S5 each silo content are `one K6` (planned)

Finally these are deterrents, more people know about our stealth nation killers, better it is.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9642
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Dec 2017 22:22

So looks like the submarine arm is having a couple of good additions this month. Inducting INS Kalavari on the West coast , launching INS Arindham/INS Arigat and firing a SLBM

Will
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Will » 13 Dec 2017 22:27

salaam wrote:Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6


An SSN with an 83Mw reactor is just not going to cut it. It needs a more powerful reactor.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby Rishi_Tri » 14 Dec 2017 03:48

Will wrote:
salaam wrote:Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6


An SSN with an 83Mw reactor is just not going to cut it. It needs a more powerful reactor.


Is Arihant 6000 Ton or 7000 Ton?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby kit » 14 Dec 2017 04:18

Will wrote:
salaam wrote:Updated as per inputs:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| No  | Name    | Type | Displacement | Reactor | Silos | Status      | Remarks                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| S1  |         |      |              |  83     |       | Commisioned | Land Based Test Reactor |
| S2  | Arihant | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Commisioned |                         |
| S3  | Arighat | SSBN |  7000 T      |  83     |  4    | Launched    |                         |
| S4  | Aridman | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Outfitted   | Stretch Arihant Design  |
| S4* |         | SSBN |  8000 T      |  83     |  8    | Planned     | Makes way for K6 usage  |
| S5  |         | SSBN | 13500 T      | 190     | 12    | Planned     | X 3                     |
| S6  |         | SSN  |  6000 T      |  83     |       | Planned     | X 6                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notes:
  • For S2/S3/S4 each silo -> 1 K4 or 3 K15
  • For S4* each silo -> 1 K5
  • For S5 each silo -> 1 K6


An SSN with an 83Mw reactor is just not going to cut it. It needs a more powerful reactor.


why ?

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 326
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Postby maz » 14 Dec 2017 05:51

"As per my understanding, the 3rd boat is built to original short design of INS Arihant. The second boat is being stretched"

Thanks for the reply. I am trying to get my head around to why the powers that be chose to build some boats to the 'shorter' variant and some to the longer - and I daresay more desirable - variant. Maybe more answers will emerge in due course.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Patni, Rakesh, Shakthi and 39 guests