Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ldev »

Barath wrote:ldev - let's agree to disagree.

I believe the Indian Navy has in its sights the possibility of much larger area of operation, that even conventional carriers can & do use a burst of speed for tactical reasons (eg getting air over wings for planes to take off, making location harder), that tailing a submarine is fallible, (especially as sub tech advances, and China devotes newer subs and more resources), and that even if you do trace/tail a sub, being able to kill it between the start of launch prep and the launch of the last SLBM requires high speed. That's a few hundred thousand to several million lives depending on that.

Trying to go all-in that speed is not required, that combat will only be at low speeds, and that all opposing subs will be traced over the next 30-40 years (lifetime of a sub + predecessor time) is a mug's game. You do not want to stake all on that gamble. . https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36725639.pdf -
My view on getting the 120 MWt reactor for the SSNs is partially based on time to delivery for the SSN i.e. it may be worth India's while to get the first 2-3 SSNs on the existing 83 MWt reactor scaled up to 120 MWt and then fit a new design 150 MWt which has room for growth in the next batch of SSNs. Something similar for the non reactor part of the SSBN i.e. Arihant, S2, S3 vs S4, S5. Yes, ideally of course the IN would like the performance of the Akula on which they have trained for years and that will require at least 150 MWt but in a time to delivery vs development trade off for the new reactor matrix, it may make sense to scale up beginning with the reactor that is currently available.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vicky »

Barath wrote: @vicky : If I understand correctly, there is not a 1:1 relation between power and displacement/speed, since cross-section and wetted area also play into drag; since reactors don't always come in one form factor and there are other considerations, a nuovo design of a sub and its power/propulsion are closely inter-related. (cf: Conform vs LA class; Alfa class )
Yes, thrust required to overcome drag is proportional to the square of the speed and directly proportional to the frontal area. The most simplified fluid dynamics drag equation is

Image

A is frontal area, u is rel. speed, cd is drag coefficient that represents the drag characteristics of the shape of the sub as a whole including displacement. Cd vs displacement is a more complex relation and out of my depth.
Since drag vs speed is a square relation, more speed requires excessively more thrust.
Barath wrote: A few considerations : S5 SSBN will be a giant, at over twice the size of Arihant, larger than Akula , having to hold large ballistic missiles (large height/dia). While a SSBN may not have the same needs for high speed, I would expect that this S5 needs a new reactor, the Arihant 83Mwth design simply may not suffice.
If rumours of S5 being double capacity are true, it will require a 120 MWt reactor to retain the modest SSBN level speeds at 8000T.
Same reactor in the SSN will be decent enough and can give speeds at excess of 22 to 25 knots if they keep the SSN in the sub-5000T range. (back of the toilet paper, jugaad thumb rule quality of calculations)
Barath wrote: You can look at upgrade or a new design. And if there can be one common design for both. [ Any thoughts, @vicky ? ]
Common reactor is absolutely possible but depends on the decision making process of whether future SSN plans were included in S5 reactor sizing.
Last edited by Vicky on 19 Sep 2021 02:52, edited 2 times in total.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vicky »

Pratyush wrote:Vicky, good series of informative posts.

Jut one confusion.

The USS Enterprise when commissioned had reactor crores that had to be upgraded in the first half of her service. The uranium initially used was low enriched. However, during the later part of her service. She was using highly enriched uranium.

If we could understand how that was done.

Perhaps our solution could be in the same direction.
If you originally sized the various components of the reactor like the rod spacing, control rod lengths, pump flow rates, pipeline pressures etc for HEU, you can always go down to LEU. You can't go the other way i.e use HEU in a LEU reactor, because your core will be unstable due to the flux density issues between your rod sizing and exposure to the moderator, or your control rods might not be able to give the same precision of power control, pumps might not be sufficient for emergency flow rates etc.

Probably Enterprise always planned for HEU but initial charge was LEU due to some reasons. Using LEU in a HEU reactor has very little problems as long as you you know haw to manage burnup issues and the sideproduct isotopes with adequate instrumentation.

LEU means you will exhaust your core quickly by operating a high flux levels. HEU will maintain the same power at low flux levels and will give you a longer core life.

Both directions are jugaad and are something a regulator might say no to if not considered in the original design. The safety standards are much more stringent in the 2020s comapred to the 1960's. Americans and Russian both had their fair share of meltdowns in their experiments to figure out these reactor technologies.
vish_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 05:07

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by vish_mulay »

First picture of INS Arighat? Apologies I cant post the image hence posting the news link.

Is AUKUS pact a signal to India to go for nuclear attack submarines?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 2-amp.html

Image
Last edited by Rakesh on 19 Sep 2021 17:16, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

No that picture is of Russian SSBN.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18263
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

Yes, it is a Borei Class SSBN I believe.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Barath »

Vicky wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Vicky, good series of informative posts.

Jut one confusion.

The USS Enterprise when commissioned had reactor crores that had to be upgraded in the first half of her service. The uranium initially used was low enriched. However, during the later part of her service. She was using highly enriched uranium.

If we could understand how that was done.

Perhaps our solution could be in the same direction.
If you originally sized the various components of the reactor like the rod spacing, control rod lengths, pump flow rates, pipeline pressures etc for HEU, you can always go down to LEU. You can't go the other way i.e use HEU in a LEU reactor,.
Pretty much endorse what Vicky says. If your reactor design is spec-ed for x% HEU, it can go down some %age . Else to go up, it may have issues in structural cladding integrity/cooling, maintaining neutron flux/controls etc. Choice of suitable fuel can help, but is not a short term fix. [from my limited layman understanding]

https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2020/ ... and_f.html
https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2019/ ... eu-fu.html

For example the US was investigating advanced nuclear fuels for the future, targeting ~2040..Such fuels have the ability to have greater %age of Uranium.
The labs narrowed down their candidate fuels to seven. The top four are UO2 (the "benchmark"), a uranium-molybdenum alloy (7-10 weight percent molybdenum), USi3 and uranium metal alloyed with 2% molybdenum and 1% silicon (Si). These compounds have uranium densities about 50% higher than UO2, which could theoretically result in the possibility of packing the same amount of uranium into a core with about two thirds of the volume of fuel. This would reduce the volume penalty from converting to a lower enrichment of U-235.

The volume penalty is further reduced because it is not necessary to have the same amount of U-235 to achieve the same core life, as during irradiation some of the U-238 in the LEU fuel is fissioned and some is converted into chain-reacting plutonium, some of which is later fissioned. In its 1995 report to Congress, NR reported that, because of these contributions, only two-thirds as much U-235 would be required at 20 percent enrichment as at 93% (Report on Use of Low Enriched Uranium in Naval Propulsion, p. 10). This effect, combined with a 50% increase of uranium density in the fuel would result in an LEU core having twice the volume of an HEU core for the same core life.

A life-of-the-ship LEU core might still require a larger reactor pressure vessel and a modest increase in submarine length to provide additional buoyancy to offset the increased weight of the reactor compartment. Alternatively, the Navy could revert to mid-life refueling, the traditional practice for pre-Virginia class submarines that still comprise the bulk of the fleet
Other concerns (eg corrosion and inspection requirements) etc also matter. Worth pointing out that the US uses ~90%+ enriched weapons grade uranium to provide compact reactors, with sufficient power, for life of sub. (in current Virginia class). Indeed, the US has used upto 97% enriched HEU, and then reduced the %age by using up HEU from weapons that were rendered surplus.

@Pratyush - To your question on the Enterprise :

The reactors on the Enterprise were sized/based on submarine reactors (~= STR for land based prototype for Nautilus = S1W (land) and this became basis for S2W on Nautilus. This then resulted in land based A1W and the A2W on the Enterprise ) . Specifically for the Enterprise the following link is definitive.

https://media.nti.org/pdfs/Replacing_HE ... _FINAL.pdf

This first nuclear propulsion reactor plant was called the Submarine Thermal Reactor. On March 30, 1953, the STR was
brought to power for the first time; it later achieved a 96-hour sustained full power run, simulating a crossing of the Atlantic
Ocean, and eventually was designated S1W, the prototype design for the reactor plant placed in the Nautilus.

As discussed above, during the early history of the U.S. nuclear program, naval nuclear reactors competed directly with the
U.S. nuclear weapons program for fissile material. The Nautilus was initially fueled with 20 percent U-235; however, as the
supply and processing of uranium improved, more U-235 was available
and Nautilus was refueled with 40 percent U-235
in 1957.63 In fact, the increasing endurance achieved with each subsequent core, starting with 62,000 miles and ending with
150,000 miles for its third core, indicates that the enrichment of the uranium fuel within the Nautilus continued to increase
throughout its life.

.....

There were initial challenges in scaling up the STR design used as the prototype for the Nautilus, and, therefore the first
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, initially contained eight A2W reactors. Subsequent surface vessel
designs overcame these challenges, and contemporary aircraft carriers only contain two larger reactors, as was designed
with the A4W reactors in the USS Nimitz. However, given that the first aircraft carrier reactor design was in development
concurrently with the second generation of submarine reactor designs, all aircraft carrier reactors were expected to have
used highly enriched uranium fuel, in excess of 90 percent U-235
. Regarding aircraft carrier reactor design, it is important
to note that all consideration by the U.S. Navy given to alternative enrichment levels for naval propulsion reactors has
been concerned with the impacts on submarines,
despite the very different reactors and operational parameters for aircraft
carriers
Also, as per Sandeep Unnithan, it seems the SSN and SSBN are both likely to share a new reactor, which is "believed" to be around 190Mw.

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/defe ... 2021-04-17
In 2006, when a committee headed by then principal scientific advisor to the PM, R. Chidambaram, identified the technology that would be needed to develop a new generation of nuclear submarines, three new ‘S-5’ SSBNs displacing around 13,500 tonnes. Both designs would be powered by a new indigenously designed nuclear reactor designed by BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre). This high performance reactor, believed to have an output of around 190 MW,
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Pump jet propulsion? If true, then :twisted:

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18263
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/GODOFPARADOXES/stat ... 68682?s=20 ---> US/UK deal with Australia is being touted as being primarily to contain China but its secondary aim will be to contain India in the long run a well thought out hedge by US/UK to enable control in IOR much into the future via proxy. Something which we Indians have failed to realize.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/GODOFPARADOXES/stat ... 68682?s=20 ---> US/UK deal with Australia is being touted as being primarily to contain China but its secondary aim will be to contain India in the long run a well thought out hedge by US/UK to enable control in IOR much into the future via proxy. Something which we Indians have failed to realize.
Not in BRF., we are fairly cognizant of what Aukus really means
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

If the planning for the 190 me reactor started in 2006. It fits the timeline whithe Arihant was in production and the lack of power headroom with her reactor was identified and understand.

This reactor should be perfected by now. Which is what the news of indigenous SSN design getting ready by 2024 means.

I understand things doesn't make me happy about the state of affairs. I still would have wanted 6 boats of under 6000 tons for the first gen Indian SSN.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Why not ask both the US and France for Submarine reactor tech ? .. jokes aside ., i think BARC can deliver on its high performance reactor for the boomers

Why not bring the AUKUS into the fold of the QUAD to give it a military dimension and allow the US to share military tech with India ? , since interoperability is the key word., do they ( UK US) think Aussies can be the bulwark against China while India cant ? :P
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vivek K »

Do you think India will set aside its national interests and pursue the US agenda? There is a price to pay for sovereignty. So without wasting time, develop your own strength and economy - and the world will line up to be friends. In this case - develop your own reactors and get additional manpower trained for R&D and operation.

Forget lusting for foreign toys - the latest posts about buying derelict M2Ks shows how wrong our priorities are and what these do to our place in the world order. The IAF rightly saw these as an opportunity to improve spare reserves but we're going gaga about resurrecting them into machines of war! All this while we can develop MK2 LCA quickly.

Once India can look inwards and believe in themselves, she will emerge as a true World Power.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vicky »

People on teetar including big dalal and non-dalal journos are lusting for Parisien designer sous marins. Some are even pitching for the yankee ilk.
kit wrote:think BARC can deliver on its high performance reactor for the boomers
As long is BARC is confident GoI shouldn't even think about foreign reactor tech as it will just be a euphemism for selling a chunk of our sovereignity as the Khan and Gauls will both ask for their fair share of a quid pro quo. It will also mean shelving or cancelling further maturity of own reactor tech for the sake of a small jump start at enormous financial and sovereign cost. Khan wants a base in the Andamans and oveflight permission over NE since the relationship with the Chinese went sour to enable them to send B2/B21 flights targeting Gobi.
Vivek K wrote: Forget lusting for foreign toys - the latest posts about buying derelict M2Ks shows how wrong our priorities are and what these do to our place in the world order. The IAF rightly saw these as an opportunity to improve spare reserves but we're going gaga about resurrecting them into machines of war! All this while we can develop MK2 LCA quickly.
.
The right way to look at it.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Vicky wrote:People on teetar including big dalal and non-dalal journos are lusting for Parisien designer sous marins. Some are even pitching for the yankee ilk.
kit wrote:think BARC can deliver on its high performance reactor for the boomers
As long is BARC is confident GoI shouldn't even think about foreign reactor tech as it will just be a euphemism for selling a chunk of our sovereignty as the Khan and Gauls will both ask for their fair share of a quid pro quo. It will also mean shelving or cancelling further maturity of own reactor tech for the sake of a small jump start at enormous financial and sovereign cost. Khan wants a base in the Andamans and oveflight permission over NE since the relationship with the Chinese went sour to enable them to send B2/B21 flights targeting Gobi.


The right way to look at it.
Indeed., its best BARC builds it and optimizes it .
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by fanne »

MK2 has not even left the drawing board - do not know how quickly can it be deployed. Per HAL plan, it wont be before 2029 (that would be in fact right year to start AMCA production and not MK2).
If I can help it -
LCA MK1 - expediated delivery (some multiple lines - some with private player) - To finish delivery by 2026/27 (The mockup sadly itself is delayed, sadly because of us, as no one is showing any interest in making it sooner). But once it is out and if (small if) - It has no issues, we should go with accelerated production. The acceleration will come with capital penalty, but worthwhile in the long run.
Use the same base (modified for MK2 - many things are same between mk1 and 2, e.g. the wing, landing gear, refueling probes etc. etc.) to get accelerated MK2 and build the require number by 2031/32 - From there on just concentrate on 5th gen bird - AMCA and perhaps TEDBF and if required ORCA.
China in the meantime would have had anything between 500-1000 5th gen bird (by 2032 - all based on Fanboy rumor on internet, they already have between 50-250 5TH GEN BIRD).
We need to be in the 5th gen bird. The chinese 5th gen will get better over time, and once it crosses the threshold of being really LO, IAF will be at serious disadvantage if it does not have its own LO bird. An AMCA in 2035/40 is too little too late.
Of course one can produce AMCA in parallel with MK2 - Then also we need an expanded base - HAL with its own govt. owned slow pace cannot be the only aviation company for 21st century India. It's too risky. They have shown sort sightedness in the past - concentrating on trainers than LCA (as LCA was not their bird), still unable to deliver Sitara from a promise to fly it in 18 months 10 years back....so on and so forth. There planning is super duper, they will plan HTFE 40 5 years too late (OR IT MAY NOT EVEN EXIST), almost without afterburner, with some 20%-30% less in capacity than what jaguar would need and proudly claim that the design cannot be expanded to extra thrust. Like very proud of consuming poison!!
We need few more good players so that one monopoly cannot hold us to ransom.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vivek K »

We're talking submarines here and sorry for OTS post above. IN must be confident of BARC's capabilities with their own staff embedded in the design. Therefore begging to be a part of something doesn't make sense. Also pushing others' agenda is a big price to pay.

The need of the hour is to deliver - not merely show pictures/renderings. Two fish in the water (Arihant, Arighat) and Aridhaman that disappeared is outstanding. Focus on larger reactor - Vicky has shown a pathway and with that perhaps this could be realized. Why then should one run after others to get this tech?

Mantra is - throw the begging bowl, ACCELERATE DELIVERIES!!!!
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Keep in mind the "speed" of deliveries depends on the ecosystem of suppliers as well !!..in some cases they need to be handheld while they grow their capabilities! We are talking about very niche and some bleeding edge technologies. All these will not happen overnight. But once reached, everything will run smoothly witness the IGMDP and Radar technologies. We will get there !!.

The same reason goes for the AMCA , i just wish folks stop their fixation on Chinese paper toys and support Indian efforts however slow it is for their liking! OT but AMCA also involves some technology and manufacturing capabilities that are still in the process of evolution. India is currently in the Tejas 1(a) level going on to mk2. There is still some way to go

Depending on foreign suppliers is a hit and miss., witness the Russian delay in supplying the aero complex for the Vikrant., not to mention the political baggage associated.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rahul M »

Sandeep
@SandeepUnnithan
Over the last 15 yrs a rarely known facet of the Indo-US dialogue has been India’s interest in naval nuclear reactors and the US reluctance to discuss it. I report in this @IndiaToday
#insight. https://indiatoday.in/india-today-insig ... rltracking
via @indiatoday
Why the US won’t give India nuclear submarines
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-20
On September 16, Indian Navy officials read the text of AUKUS, a US-UK-Australian military alliance, with a sense of dismay. The high point of AUKUS is that both the US and the UK will equip Australia to design and build up to eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to counter the rising threat of China in the Indo-Pacific. China’s belligerence is a common concern for several countries in the region, especially the ‘Quad’ countries of US, Australia, Japan and India, who revived their grouping last year.

Indian Navy chiefs and naval veterans have raised the prospect of Indo-US collaboration on nuclear reactor propulsion technology only to have been politely rebuffed by their US counterparts. During a Track 2 dialogue held in Australia two years ago, the US side was emphatic in its refusal, recalls an Indian representative who was part of the event. The US Congress would never contemplate discussing anything to do with the transfer of nuclear propulsion, they were told.
...
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Rahul M wrote:Why the US won’t give India nuclear submarines
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-20
Isnt that a good thing that India does it independently with or without others ? Look at it this way , even if the US was to share some reactor tech would it enable India to build upon it and build derivatives and higher power versions ?

On the same note , has the US ever shared any significant technology with India ., it boggles the mind ..forget nuclear reactor tech !
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Mort Walker »

It’s the loss of the US. The Arihant class needs to be accelerated with half dozen more boats.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vivek K »

Why does there need to be dismay! I would be happy instead! No need to be bound by the other's policies - accelerate our own program! And offer perhaps nuke subs to friends like Vietnam! Why do Indians keep waiting on someone to come make them a power? Powers are not made through largess, this status is snatched.

Stop thinking small - rename LCA to HF 30 or something. Stop using the "L" word. Don't setup tiny manufacturing systems - set up assembly for 50 aircraft at a time. No less. Push out Indian maal as much as possible.

It is the US's loss. And make them feel it by growing your own industries and supply chains.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Mort Walker »

Exactly. The US and Australia are violating law as signatories to the alphabet soup of treaties. Time to give Vietnam nuke boats!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18263
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

Rahul M wrote:Why the US won’t give India nuclear submarines
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-20
If there was any unease over the Indo-US "strategic" partnership, this article brings them all to the forefront.

The height of hypocrisy of the US in this matter should be an eye opener for all the forum members who pushed and argued for the MMRCA 1.0 contest, the SE fighter contest and the present MMRCA 2.0 contest to go the American way. Although, I am fully aware excuses will be provided by these same forum members.

At what basis is the US honestly expecting India to trust her, when this is the way she behaves? I thought China was the primary threat :lol: What is the point of the Quad, the Indo-Pacific Command and all that other hullabaloo?

I really hope the strategic, military and political circles in India keep the relationship with the US on a purely transactional basis. They are the most untrustworthy, unreliable nation to partner with. With China, you can "RELY" on them that they will always have India in their crosshairs.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vivek K »

Admiral sir - totally agree with the sentiment expressed. India does not belong in the Quad anymore. Should look at a grouping with France, Japan and perhaps Vietnam, and others.

But grouping or not - prioritize your own MIC - this is made clearer by the recent actions. Don't kill Indian jobs for someone that will come riding like a Prince and kiss and make you a superpower overnight.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

I read the Sandeep Unninathan article yesterday evening. Taking some time to consolidate my thoughts. I think that the bugbears of the last 15 years no longer apply with the Australian nuke sub deal.

Now India has an option of making an out right purchase of any Russian nuke submarine design provided it's for sale. Or co develop one from the scratch.

Same form the khan's. The Australian sub can be used as a kind of precedence and a test case of US commitment to India. By putting pressure on the khan's.

Remember that every time India get's close to a break through to any technology. The flood gates open to retard our progress.

So the best course of action is to complete the domestic SSN design ASAP. Start building it. Put 30 in the water between 2030 and 2040.

It's a brave new world.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Why the US won’t give India nuclear submarines
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-20
If there was any unease over the Indo-US "strategic" partnership, this article brings them all to the forefront.

The height of hypocrisy of the US in this matter should be an eye opener for all the forum members who pushed and argued for the MMRCA 1.0 contest, the SE fighter contest and the present MMRCA 2.0 contest to go the American way. Although, I am fully aware excuses will be provided by these same forum members.

At what basis is the US honestly expecting India to trust her, when this is the way she behaves? I thought China was the primary threat :lol: What is the point of the Quad, the Indo-Pacific Command and all that other hullabaloo?

I really hope the strategic, military and political circles in India keep the relationship with the US on a purely transactional basis. They are the most untrustworthy, unreliable nation to partner with. With China, you can "RELY" on them that they will always have India in their crosshairs.
Well said Rakesh

Let this be in BRF

An unreliable friend [US] is worse than a reliable enemy [ China ]
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by SRajesh »

??Wonder QUAD was always a smokescreen created to hide AUSUK
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ArjunPandit »

the oldies are in good form..great to see forums coming back to life again. Here are my two thoughts
1. India should accelerate its own program rather than buying or co development program...time and again we have seen what cooperation means
2. this agreement could be used as a pressure tactic on india to buy american/british submarines, waht australia can buy, india would far more...and havign such large no.s would bankrupt apart from not doing any good to our science tech..partner if possible on some techs but go local..take teh china way
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by ArjunPandit »

kit wrote: An unreliable friendUS is worse than a reliable enemy [ China ]
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Prem Kumar »

Rahul M wrote: Why the US won’t give India nuclear submarines
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-09-20
This is a reminder (for whom such is necessary) that its all about the anglo-saxon race. What else does Khan, Londonistan and the Penal colony have in common?

All this "shared democracy" bullshit is internalized only by desi dhimmies & MUTUs.

With these people, everything must be transactional onlee. Always look out for opportunity to beg/borrow/steal tech. Use & throw where needed. No morals, no nothing.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18263
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Rakesh »

The new AUKUS alliance holds some lessons for India
https://indianexpress.com/article/opini ... k-7523384/
21 Sept 2021
Arun Prakash writes: If realpolitik so demands, it must break old shibboleths and strike new partnerships — wherever there is convergence of interests.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Pratyush »

Admiral Arun Prakash is echoing what I had posted yesterday morning.

It's a brave new world. We have to be imaginative and bold to create opportunities for ourselves.

It's not necessary to go with US. Even France and Russia represent opportunities for us.

The indigenous program is our crowing achievement.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vicky »

BHEL Annual Report states that they delivered first indigenously developed Reserve propulsion motor and a 500 kW Main Motor Generator for submarine applications in 2020-21

BHEL is working with Navy to develop a Lithium-ion battery suite for submarine applications.

BHEL has developed a 350 kW reversible Permanent Magnet Synchronous propulsion unit which has successfully completed 2500 hours of endurance testing. ( Possibly a subscale prototype for SSK/SSN drive motor) :D
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Vicky »

Vicky wrote: BHEL has developed a 350 kW reversible Permanent Magnet Synchronous propulsion unit which has successfully completed 2500 hours of endurance testing. ( Possibly a subscale prototype for SSK/SSN drive motor) :D
This is probably the first stage of the PMSM work for SSK's and SSN's.

We have seen an EoI for a 5 MW drive motor for an SSK retrofit - likely Kilo class but don't know whether BHEL will go with PMSM or stick to the original DC type in the Kilo.

5 MW is the next step for BHEL and can probably be delivered very quickly.

An IN EoI for 35 MW drive motor for pumpjet propulsion also exists. A 35 MW PMSM will be challenging to design - the technical risk will depend on achieving the compact design. They should probably have a backup plan sticking to the steam propulsion instead of attempting NEP/IEP for this.

The only parallel motor design is the 20 MW motor in the Barracuda/Suffren. I am not sure if it is PMSM or DC. Can't find any info from ECA-Jeumont or DCNS. The Siemens & Jeumont designs go to 4 MW max and the Japanese SMC-8 is 8 MW.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by jamwal »

shyamd wrote:PM told French President that finances will be tight for the next few years re: arms purchases/deals.

IN wants six nuclear subs and another 6 with AIP. Due to international controls on nuc exports - French are still debating whether they should offer their designs - possible solution is India provides the nuc mini reactor on a french designed/built hull. Brazil model could be an option legally. Nobody in france is sure if IN will have the funds.

Russians offering AIP design next year. Navantia said 2026.
What is a nuclear submarine with AIP?
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by shyamd »

^^ apologies - IN Wants 6 nuc and 6 AIP equipped sub
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by Larry Walker »

Our Arihant reactor does not have the juice to propel attack SSN - that is the primary reason for scouting for nuke subs. How can we fit our reactor in French vessel and still have same performance ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by NRao »

Larry Walker wrote:Our Arihant reactor does not have the juice to propel attack SSN - that is the primary reason for scouting for nuke subs. How can we fit our reactor in French vessel and still have same performance ?
Cannot find the article when I need it, but it stated that India has two reactors: 90/190 MW. The 90MW is based on the Charlie class sub India leased, while the 190MW is based on the reactor inside the Akula. The article suggested that India will use the 190MW for her attack subs.
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Post by uddu »

NRao wrote:
Larry Walker wrote:Our Arihant reactor does not have the juice to propel attack SSN - that is the primary reason for scouting for nuke subs. How can we fit our reactor in French vessel and still have same performance ?
Cannot find the article when I need it, but it stated that India has two reactors: 90/190 MW. The 90MW is based on the Charlie class sub India leased, while the 190MW is based on the reactor inside the Akula. The article suggested that India will use the 190MW for her attack subs.
Mostly this one? https://twitter.com/Parthu_Potluri/stat ... 1502767109
Post Reply