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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19519
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2015 23:20

Finally - as regards the limitations of design assistance as versus the depth of what BARC did & how its existing linkages with Indian industry helped. Note the Russian surprise at the simulator. Also the amount of effort it took to get fuel availability up. In short many areas for the Russians to have helped us (especially with the fuel) without having to be directly in charge of the reactor design. Their effort would be the same as we see with programs like the LCA, to save time & point out if enough safety & test related checkpoints are met without transferring us any core technology of their own which would be their own state secrets.

Note how BARC did the reactor design, the fuel design & even the plant design through various iterations. None of which would have been required if there was substantial Russian tech transfer for the design itself. Hence to state the program was "dead" without Russian assistance for the reactor and hull - disagree.

I'd in fact state the lack of available subsystems for submarines was a bigger challenge. How many non western suppliers could provide us or would work with us to provide us the various systems, raw materials and other items we required?

http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/crit ... 038061.ece

Multidisciplinary effort

Building Arihant’s reactor was essentially a multidisciplinary effort that involved fuel development, thermal and mechanical engineering to manufacture the reactor pressure vessel, steam generators and high pressure components, control rod mechanism, control and instrumentation, electromechanical systems, drive mechanisms, and so on. “It is a marriage of all these systems to make the reactor work efficiently,” Banerjee said in August 2009. “It is not desktop research at all,” he emphasised.

BARC’s engineers and scientists were involved in all this, from engineering the concept to the final product development. For everything had to be developed from scratch and there was absolutely no technology available to India on the PWR.

While V.K. Mehra gave leadership to the reactor development programme and H.S. Kamat was in charge of fuel development, B.K. Bera, A.K. Suri and R.P. Singh played important roles on the fuel side. The contribution of G.P. Srivastava, M. Mahapatra and R.K. Patil was formidable in control and instrumentation. R.S. Yadav dealt with the design and manufacture of one of the most important components, the reactor pressure vessel. C.G. Utge was responsible for the development of high-pressure, high-temperature equipment.

Why was PWR, not Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) technology which India had mastered and used to build several commercial reactors, chosen to propel the submarine? PWRs use enriched uranium as fuel and light water as coolant and moderator. In contrast, PHWRs use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both coolant and moderator. “PHWR is not something which you can make into a compact form,” said Banerjee, who later became AEC Chairman. Besides, nuclear energy generation depends on the quantity of fissile material available in the reactor and the PWR lent itself admirably for this with a high availability of fissile material (uranium-235) in enriched uranium. While plutonium also can be used as fuel, enriched uranium-driven fuel is generally adopted for reactors that propel submarines.

The question now arose whether India had the capability to enrich uranium. (If the non-fissile U-238 is removed from natural uranium, then the U-235 concentration will go up. This is called enrichment of uranium. This is done by a series of chemical and physical processes. If one uses enriched uranium as fuel, the availability of neutrons is high enough to generate electricity and one can use light water as coolant and moderator.)

So a small plant was set up at Ratnahalli near Mysore in 1990 for enriching uranium, and work on designing the enriched uranium fuel for the submarine’s nuclear power pack also began. BARC made a technological breakthrough in developing all the centrifuges needed for enriching uranium without any external help. The centrifuges were needed to separate U-238 from U-235 so that the concentration of U-235 went up, but the separation technology itself was very complex. To sustain the centrifugal forces, centrifuges were to have a high strength-to-weight ratio. Yet, they had to be thin. So maraging steel was used in the manufacture of centrifuges.

The next step was to process the enriched uranium into fuel. Banerjee said: “This is also crucial because unlike in the case of fuel for the land-based reactor, here the fuel had to be monolithic. This required special fabrication techniques that allow you to make the fuel withstand the rolling, pitching and other movements of the submarine…. In Trombay, we developed the right kind of fuel.”

Reactor development

The reactor development itself was a big and tough task. At the heart of the reactor is its pressure vessel, which houses the fuel. Developing the pressure vessel entailed the use of a special technology and a special steel. The material had to have high fracture toughness and the toughness had to be retained even if the steel got exposed to radiation. So a special type of steel was developed to withstand the radiation environment.

The design of the vessel was another major challenge. The issue of the reactor’s compactness came in. The entire PWR had to fit into the cramped space of the submarine’s hull. Steam generators, tall structures consisting of a maze of pipes, posed another big problem. They produced steam to drive the turbine which generated electricity. So the steam generator and the pressure vessel were designed in such a way that every small space in the hull was made use of. This was a very important mechanical engineering design, which BARC engineers, after many trials and efforts, evolved.

Development of hundreds of subsystems and high-pressure valves and pumps posed various challenges, which were met by BARC engineers. Indian industry rose to the occasion by manufacturing them. The entire reactor structure had to be designed in such a way that it is stable when the submarine accelerates. What had to be taken into account here was that the reactor was housed in a submarine that sped under water. The thrust generated by the submarine’s propulsion required a design for the reactor that was different from that of a nuclear power reactor on terra firma.

“In designing the propulsion of the submarine, we had to take into account the various sea conditions, including rough sea, the submarine’s pitching and rolling, the effect of saline water, enemy action which includes underwater explosions/depth charges and internal conditions,” explained Basu. “Yet another factor is that the propulsion plant had to be compact and so weight and volume had to be minimised. Thirdly, the plant had to be very reliable. It is moving under water, hundreds of kilometres away from the shore. In case of an accident, no help will be available from outside. So back-up safety systems should function perfectly.”

So, the design of the safety system was crucial. BARC went for passive safety systems, which would not need an external source of electricity, to come into action. The passive thermo-siphoning system will come into play in abnormal conditions. Since a submarine’s reactor has no exclusion zone, unlike its counterpart on land where no human settlement is allowed a few kilometres around it, gamma shielding, and partly neutron shielding, by water was done.


In land-based reactors, control rods fall by gravity and bring the reactors to a halt in case of an accident. But the rolling and pitching of the boat demands that the control-rod mechanism is designed suitably to take care of the submarine’s various movements. “Since power has to be generated in a regulated manner, it puts a lot of restrictions on the design of the control mechanisms. Diverse techniques were used to design them. We had to take into consideration the possibility of the boat going upside down. So special sensors and drives were made for ensuring a safe and reliable operation of the control-rod mechanisms,” said Srivastava in August 2009. Indeed, 13 control mechanisms were accommodated within a diameter of 0.8 metre.

[BARC also built a simulator at Visakhapatnam to train navy personnel in operating the reactor. When the Russians were shown this simulator, they were amazed at its sophistication.

In the Arihant project, which went under the name of ATV programme, DRDO laboratories contributed sonars, sensors, sound absorption materials, communication equipment, electronics and weapons. While the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Kochi, contributed sensors to Arihant, special acoustics were done by the Naval Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), Visakhapatnam.


In the end, as Banerjee emphasised, it boiled down to teamwork in a multidisciplinary project and he called the platform “a very complex combination of various technologies”. As Kakodkar said, “This PWR technology is very complex. You have to make it extremely compact and pack it in the cramped space of the submarine’s hull. It was a big challenge.”

Today, India can assert that it has mastered the technology of developing and manufacturing nuclear propulsion for driving submarines. The proof of it lies in three more nuclear-powered submarines being built at Visakhapatnam. When the four submarines, including Arihant, patrol the seas, India will have achieved the status of a blue-water navy.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19519
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2015 09:14

And last but not least, this stuff about consultancy - http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/in ... 206631.ece

Compare the timelines & people involved & it becomes clear that this was an ongoing effort much before 1998 (see the previous article from India Strategic) & the effort came good because of BARCs experience plus its tieups with local industry for its other reactor programs. In short, Russian assistance while useful in terms of efficiency was not equivalent to a design transfer or transfer of IP. That remains our own & what we have fixed. Their assistance in fuel transfer for the land based system would have helped as well.

Hence this comment is completely wrong:

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.


and I 'd disagree with this.

Yet to see any firm evidence of 1. New reactor 2. Design input (as versus consultancy which is of a level lower, in terms of providing process related guidelines, reviewing Indian work and so forth).

There is a huge difference between the two. In one, design input - the partner owns the IP & retains it. A classic case is Brahmos, where India & Russia share the missile IP & neither can export the base system without the others consent.

The second, is the LCA type. Where India owns the FBW & systems, and it occasionally calls in other folks to review its work & provide suggestions. At best their inputs speed things up, but by themselves Indian/Indian firms can get things done as was evident when the US withdrew collaboration post the original ADE/LM collaboration where the US actually had significant input in the FBW hardware in the DFCC but we went ahead and created our own variant & then continued the test program on our own.

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


OTOH, we don't have any such data about all the other myriad systems and components that go into the submarine bar the efforts of DRDO etc to use what was available via NPOL, NSTL etc.

Thats the part where Russian assistance has been critical.

But people say or have constantly said that India doesn’t have the expertise in enrichment. So does this criticality of the ‘PRP,’ as it is called, lay to rest the controversy that India does not have the full capability of enrichment?

Yes, we have an enrichment plant at Mysore, the Rare Materials Plant and that plant has sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of this programme. This reactor is now running for three years. So obviously, we had got the fuel earlier than that.

Was this completely made in India?

Yes.

Designed, fabricated and executed in India?

Yes, that’s right, by Indian industries.

And by Indian scientists?

Yes.

At Vizag, the Prime Minister went out of the way and thanked the Russians, and the Russian Ambassador was also present. What was the role of the Russians? India had leased a Russian nuclear submarine?

I would also like to thank our Russian colleagues. They have played a very important role as consultants, they have a lot of experience in this, so their consultancy has been of great help. I think we should acknowledge that.

Consultancy for what?

For various things, as you go along when you are doing things for the first time — with a consultant by your side, you can do it more confidently and these are difficult time-consuming challenges. So you have to do this without too much of iterative steps and consultancy helped in that.

So this is not a Russian design?

It is an Indian design.

Indian design, made in India, by Indians?

Yes, that’s right.


You have had the system running here in Kalpakkam for several years. Has it functioned smoothly?

Yes, it is working extremely well.

No outages, no issues?

Well this is run in a campaign mode because this is run in the same way as one would expect in the real situation. So it is running in a campaign mode because I think the important thing is to be able to ramp up and come down and it is really doing extremely well.

It is believed that it will also carry some things which the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has developed [the nuclear bombs]. So will it really give India the second strike capability because we have a no-first-use policy?

Yes that is the purpose of such a platform.

And this platform will ensure that?

Yes.

Are you confident of that?

Of course, I am confident. It has been designed with a lot of care.

I am told it is about ten times smaller than a normal power reactor, is that correct?

Well if you want to construct a power reactor of a similar power capacity, it would happen that way, yes.

So would it be fair to call it a baby reactor?

It is a small reactor compared to, say, for example a commercial power station, 1000 MW (electric) would generate more than 3000 MW of heat, which is about 30 times what we produce here. Of course, such reactors are huge in size and dimensions and all. But it is a small compact reactor. And that’s the challenge about it.

So, when can one expect to have criticality on the sea-based reactor in the INS Arihant?

This will be essentially decided by the Navy, as I said they have a fairly elaborate sequence of activities through these trials and whenever they are ready for going through the criticality, I am sure our people will facilitate that to happen quickly.

Nuclear reactors for submarines are used normally for increasing the endurance. What is the kind of endurance you are being able to provide to INS Arihant?

Well it will be, in fact, in terms of the actual use for a nuclear submarine. The endurance is dictated more by human endurance rather than the energy of the power pack endurance. Power pack endurance is usually much larger. So it’s the human endurance — it can remain submerged depending upon the human endurance.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20716
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2015 13:28

There is a report.article which I must track down,will take some time,where the Ru OEM provided substantial details including "drawings",etc. The entire ATV project is still so highly classified that we will perhaps never be able to discern the truth .The hard fact remains that without Russian assistance it would've taken us at least a decade or so extra to have developed an N-sub. Why would there be 120+ Ru technicians working on the ATV for so long? There's no need to belittle the Russian assistance gratefully acknowledged by our then PM. We are now negotiating a second improved Akula-2/3 lease. Who else is able and willing to provide us with the same capability? I don't see the US anywhere offering us a Los Angeles or Virginia class boat,naval N-reactor tech,etc. We are supposedly asking for Yasen class sub tech on the second boat. Absolutely bleedin' edge tech.

Let's consider our sub building track record.2 German U-209s which took ages to complete and until this year,unable to complete a refit of a Kilo. Just one Scorpene has been launched,yet to complete its sea trials and be formally commissioned. The Scorpene programme too is 5 years behind time.Not belittling whatever indigenous efforts we've achieved in sub-tech,to imagine that we could've waltzed our way into designing and building an SSBN all on our own must be consigned to the realms of fantasy.We are still searching for a suitable design for the P-75!

There is a lot of info in this paper on our N-sub,including info about attempts to build the N-reactor.
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/india/sub/ssn/part01.htm
Richard Sharpe, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships recently stated to Indian Age that "the Russian submarine-design bureau Rubin is cooperating with the DRDO in developing the sub's 190 MW PWR, and that the Indian navy already tested a nuclear-propulsion system ashore."

He further stated that fabrication work on the 6000-tonne displacement hull will begin next year.


Another quote:
Indeed, the Arihant’s design is based on the Russian Akula-1 class submarines and its 83mw pressurised water reactor has been built with significant Russian assistance. While its 100-member crew has been trained by Russian specialists, Indian scientists at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre have received significant expertise in reducing the size of the reactor to help it fit into the 10 m diameter hull of the nuclear submarine.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby maitya » 17 Nov 2015 16:00

Philip wrote:There is a report.article which I must track down,will take some time,where the Ru OEM provided substantial details including "drawings",etc. The entire ATV project is still so highly classified that we will perhaps never be able to discern the truth .The hard fact remains that without Russian assistance it would've taken us at least a decade or so extra to have developed an N-sub. Why would there be 120+ Ru technicians working on the ATV for so long? There's no need to belittle the Russian assistance gratefully acknowledged by our then PM.


All the belittling is actually by you - of indigenous effort towards the nuclear reactor (and the attended processes) for Arihant.

So let's see one by one ...
1) There is a report.article which I must track down,will take some time,where the Ru OEM provided substantial details including "drawings",etc.
No problems as most probably all "drawings" etc would for the sub itself (alluded in my post as well, re-read it). Doesn't mean and actually doesn't have anything to do with drawings etc of the propulsion bit, which is what you originally eluded to.


2) The entire ATV project is still so highly classified that we will perhaps never be able to discern the truth .
Amen to that ... however one needs to go thru "associated" literature of Indian nuclear tech effort to arrive at various guess-estimates. They will be hypothetical, true, but they will be deductive reasoning type hypothesis and not "he says, she says types" rants.

A number of pointers to what subject-matter to search and read for is given in m y post as well. Do look up.

As an example, until mid 90s, Indian expertise was limited to teen levels of U-enrichment (called low-levels, ok for civilian reactors etc) - how (and where) did India graduate to mid-level and then high-level of U-enrichment required for such applications? Do read up.


3) The hard fact remains that without Russian assistance it would've taken us at least a decade or so extra to have developed an N-sub.
I'd also actually agree to that part - as long as the Russian assistance bit is confined towards the actual platform design and building aspects (and not towards the reactor/propulsive parts).
That was 1st ever sub (any type of sub) design and build - it's actually natural that Russian assistance was seek and obtained.

In fact without the validatory nature of consultations by Russia of the nuclear reactor itself, it would have taken much more longer as well.
(remember, Indian experience on Nuclear reactors until then were towards PHWRs and not PWRs - subtle but quite significant difference there).


4) Why would there be 120+ Ru technicians working on the ATV for so long? There's no need to belittle the Russian assistance gratefully acknowledged by our then PM.
Read the various posts again - it's not only the Indian PM but the entire "Nuclear" community (so to speak) also thanked for Russian help - the majority of which towards the design and fabrication of the platform per se.

It also doesn't mean consultancy towards the reactor side was not obtained - it most probably was and everybody is grateful to Russia for that (as, not other country would have even provided that).

But consultancy is, well, consultancy - has nothing to do with the actual design and fabrication and remains mostly towards validation of the design and build process parts. But for even that, which other country could India have turned to except Russia. For which teh nation, led by the PM, has profusely thanked a friend.

So let's not take it to the other extreme and make the claims that you are making.

=========================
PS: To others, work pressure is keeping me away from BRF for last couple of months together. So not able to participate in the discussions in meaningful ways (so, these posts are not hit-and-run types etc and the intent is to engage in meaningful discussion - but not bale to carve out the required bandwidth).

So pls carry on.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby tsarkar » 19 Nov 2015 23:35

Karan M wrote:
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.

You start with a personal attack, that I will respond later once I’ve posted completely. Rest assured, and as readers can themselves decide, most posts of mine are well substantiated with logic and facts.

I’m responding to your multiple posts in a single post, and structuring them contextually for the sake of clarity.

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote: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 :lol: "internals" and all fanciful :lol: "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. :lol:

Yes, golly gawsh! The purpose of ATV project was to use any means – buy, beg, borrow, steal, develop – to build a nuclear submarine that is essential for assured second strike given our no first use commitment. Hence the Material Department was established, which is one of India’s best sourcing organizations.

And it very successfully managed sourcing.

Karan M wrote: So subsystems are somehow going to be magically available because …. 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.[/b] :lol:

No Karan, you are wrong here.

Despite Pokhran, there were no sub systems denial from Germany for Type 209/1500 submarines. We did a Thomson CSF Eldone sonar upgrade on Type 209/1500 in early 2000s.

Despite Pokhran, There were no sub systems denial for Project 877 submarines. If you read Admiral Hiranandani’s 5th book, which is the Official History of the Indian Navy, it was in the same timeframe 1999-2000 that Russia agree to integrate Klub Land Attack Missile to Indian Type 877 submarines. Those were the first time Russia integrated cruise missiles to conventional submarines.

Karan M wrote:we…have to jump through hoops to make things on our own.[/b] :lol:


There was absolutely no need to ATV project to make things on their own when subsystems were available through sourcing.So ATV Project never had to jump through hoops.

How does a nuclear submarine differ from a conventional submarine? Hull design, Reactor, Heat Exchanger, Turbines, Gears. Let’s call it powerplant. If it carries ballistic missiles, then missiles, launch systems and communication systems for targeting.

Rest of the systems are exactly same as DE submarines

As explained earlier, all the rest of the subsystems systems were available.

In 1998/99 a decision was taken to use the rest of the sub-systems as in Type 877 instead of Type 671. Reason being Type 877 was newer and more in number than Type 671, and in widespread service, so supplier chain was well established.
Example being the torpedo system of INS Arihant, which is the same as Type 877 Sindhu class. Also the USHUS sonar was chosen, which was developed to fit the Type 877 Sindhu class. Using existing & proven design features cuts down on project risk.

So to conclude, ATV Project had all “internals” subsystems available for sourcing and did not have to jump through hoops like you are.

Karan M wrote: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?

No, you’re making a very poor attempt to wriggle out when I asked you to specify which internals other than hull & powerplant held up ATV project from 1976 to 1999 by giving a pathetic lame excuse of wasting time. As explained very simply and clearly above, all other sub systems were available from Russia. You refer to some mysterious exotic subsystem that delayed the program from 1976-2009 but are unable to specify which subsystem

The project was dead in 1998 because we had issues with the powerplant & hull.

Karan M wrote: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.

Karan, you are attempting to confuse readers by stating that ATV project faced the same challenges as Scorpene project.

No, MDL is not trying to locate other manufacturers, because the Scorpene design is proprietary to DCN and Navantia. There are no other manufacturers

And we didn’t get ToT for Scorpene subsystems because of a poorly drafted contract.

In the original contract, to show fake Indigenization, certain subsystems were allocated to be procured by MDL. These systems were called Mazgaon Procured Materials (MPL). There was no ToT asked in the contract.

MPL procurement was delayed by MDL, and DCN & Navantia jacked up prices. In the world of business, something available at a point of time when rupee was 45 to a dollar is not available at a later point of time when rupee is 66 to a dollar.

MPL was just white labelled parts. There was a vague hope that ToT will be done for MPL but nothing specific in the contract.

Karan M wrote: yes, Arihant is very easy.


Karan, the Scorpene challenges were artificially created by vested interests. ATV project faced no such challenges.

ATV project had no ToT requirements for internal sub-systems for which good sourcing arrangements were in place. So please do not attempt to confuse by stating ATV project faced same challenges as Scorpene

Karan M wrote:The RBTH blog claimed India got reactors ( :eek: ) & theres a huge difference between getting some technical consultancy & doing the rest on your own as versus imports or TOT.


The blog is wrong. We did not get reactors off the shelf. While BARC could design reactors, it did not have experience in designing reactors suitable for submarine operations. Where the Russians helped is give design inputs to BARC for designing the reactor in a manner that it was suitable for submarine operations, give design inputs for integrating the complete powerplant, and finally design inputs for building a hull around the powerplant and the missiles.

This is where we failed before 1998 and this is where the Russians helped.

Karan M wrote: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.

This is another attempt by you to confuse readers by implying that lack of indigenization of submarine internal sub-systems help up ATV project.

Because ATV Project DID NOT have any indigenization requirements for internal sub-systems that were reliably sourced by the Material Department.

Indian Navy’s indigenization plan is much after INS Arihant was launched in 1999. There was absolutely no bearing of this indigenization plan on ATV project timelines.

Karan M wrote: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.

More nonsense logic from you. How much delay did customizing 533 mm TT of Project 877 Sindhu for ATV take? From 1976 to 2009?

How much delay did customizing USHUS sonar of Project 877 for ATV take? From 1999 to 2009? USHUS was available since early 2000s and if not, MGK-400 Rubikon sonar was available in plenty.

Karan M wrote: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).

Karan, if YOU hypothesize that mythical peripheral components held up ATV project in 1998, then onus is on YOU to give evidence to support your hypothesis. Not me.

Its like you saying there are rose gardens in Pluto and asking others to give facts to prove otherwise.

That kind of twisted nonsensical logic used by you & a couple of other internet champions here does not work with me or in the real world outside internet forums.

You are as naked as the Emperor’s new clothes when it comes to providing evidence as to which peripheral subsystem or component held up ATV development from 1976 to 2009.

And I have written how the supply chain for sub-components was freely available, there was no ask for indigenization for those sub-components, and none of those sub-components were something mysterious or exotic as speculated by you.

Karan M wrote:My view is that with or without Russian assistance BARC had the capability to do what it did , was well on its way


If it was well on its way, why did Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat asked for a technology audit in December 1998?

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

By the late 1990s, it had spent over Rs 2,000 crore on its classified ATV programme without results. The failure to produce a submarine had in 1998 piqued then navy chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat to call for a technical audit.


Can you explain, Karan, that if ATV “was well on its way”, when why was there no submarine in 1998?

Can you explain, Karan, that if ATV “was well on its way”, why was there no construction program in 1998 with not even one steel plate cut in 1998?

Your logic of other internal subcomponents being unavailable is wrong & incorrect. The ATV project could easily source other internal subcomponents before 1998.

Read here how IN Captain Dr Buddhi Kota Subba Rao was victimized by DAE and his life destroyed because he said DAE reactor wont work. How DAE refusal to admit the reactor worked delayed the program.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060228/edit.htm#6

Since the early 1970s, the DAE and the Navy have been involved in a project which would lead to the development of a nuclear reactor suitable for powering submarines.

These, for obvious reasons, have to be much smaller than land-based power plants.This project, named 932, functioned under the DAE with some naval officers thrown in. Progress was slow when, in 1979, the naval officer assigned to the project, one Capt Subba Rao, reported to the Navy that the design being developed by the DAE was flawed and wholly unsuited for the purpose.

Subba Rao was no nuclear scientist and his knowledge of reactors was self acquired and, in the beginning, no one took him seriously. However, his arguments became persuasive and Adm Ronnie Pereira, the Naval Chief, took him to Dr Raja Ramanna, the Scientific Adviser to the Raksha Mantri, and, himself, a former head of the DAE. Dr Ramanna promised to have Subba Rao’s views examined by the DAE but the department made no change in its approach.
The CNS remained convinced that the objections raised by Captain Rao were valid and, thereafter, took little interest in Project 932. The DAE man controlling the project was one Dr Anil Kakodkar. Time was to show that the development of the reactor was, indeed, flawed. It had to be abandoned with great loss of money and time and a new approach had to be adopted.

For his efforts, Subba Rao was arrested by the Mumbai policy when leaving the country with some documents on nuclear reactors earlier published in a foreign magazine. The DAE certified that these documents could be ‘harmful’ to national security. The poor man languished in prison for over a year. He learnt law, argued his own case and was acquitted honourably with severe strictures being passed on the authorities

Today, when we talk of the ATV project and its delays, it is easy to overlook that more than a decade was lost because the DAE, smitten by its we-know-all philosophy, failed, possibly refused, to objectively analyse the deficiencies highlighted to them by somebody outside the establishment.

The inability to shed the ‘I can do it cocoon’ at some time when it becomes clear that capability just does not exist, is the greatest bane and weakness of our scientific community. It has done India proud many times and in different fields, space being a prime example, but has left the country staggering at other times. The DAE falls in this latter category.


Karan M wrote:the assistance truly counted in opening up the Arihant to Russia's proven system suppliers whose systems are within the boat.

Russia’s proven system suppliers were available from 1976-1999 and availability of sub systems providers never held up ATV Project. It was hull & powerplant issues where Russians gave design assistance. On resolution of those issues from 1999 onwards, did INS Arihant start taking shape

I’ll respond on Anil Kakodkar and Srikumar Banerjee’s quotes later since I’m out of time for today.

BTW Srikumar Banerjee is a family friend, though we’ve never discuss work. And a coursemate is heading SBC, again, we never discuss work.
Last edited by tsarkar on 19 Nov 2015 23:54, edited 3 times in total.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby member_29172 » 19 Nov 2015 23:42

Any evidence for your claims tsarkarji? Anyone can dream up and blabber whatever they want, without evidence (official claims etc.) it doesn't mean $hit. It's blatantly disrepectful to the Navy and GOI to make such absurd claims. If begging borrowing and stealing was the aim, why did it take so long for the ATV to develop? Why did we bother to go through user trials?

It's just some absurd inferiority complex at play here, nothing else. Your knowledge on navy is admirable, and then you make such stupid statements...

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby tsarkar » 19 Nov 2015 23:55

What evidence do you want, Alka_P?

You'll find evidence in a book called Lord of the Flies.

My VIII standard English teacher made it part of our reading list.

Please do read the book, especially the characters of the Choir Boys, and you'll find all the evidence you ever wanted.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2015 00:08

tsarkar, if Russian help was available, then why did the ATV come on line after more than 30 years? And if the tech is Russian and India has already used it in the Chakra-I and the Akula, then why is it taking so long for trials to be completed? If this was Russian know how and they are already operating several types, then why isn't the Arihant in service already?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby tsarkar » 20 Nov 2015 00:25

Vivek K wrote:tsarkar, if Russian help was available, then why did the ATV come on line after more than 30 years?
The program was stuck from 1976 to 1998 because we were trying to do the reactor on our own. After Adm Vishnu Bhagwat asked for a Technical Audit in December 1998, Russian assistance was taken areas where we were stuck (powerplant & hull) in 1999, the land based reactor was built in 2001, the hull was ordered in 2002, the land based reactor goes critical in 2006 and INS Arihant is launched in 2009. Surely 10 years from 1999-2009 is pretty quick given the time it took to build INS Delhi, INS Shivalik, INS Vikrant & INS Kolkata?

Vivek K wrote:And if the tech is Russian and India has already used it in the Chakra-I and the Akula, then why is it taking so long for trials to be completed? If this was Russian know how and they are already operating several types, then why isn't the Arihant in service already?

There are two types of testing - equipment testing and operational testing

Equipment Testing takes time. Just because an equipment is familiar doesn't mean it doesn't need testing. IN has fired lots of BrahMos, but still Brahmos needs to be tested from Teg, Tarkash, Trikand, Kolkata, Kochi & Chennai. You cant skip testing because a weapon is familiar. IN has experience in firing 533 mm torpedoes and using USHUS sonar. Still both these will need testing on Arihant. Does it have experience in firing K-15 from Arihant? No, that testing will need to be done. Has the IN tested reactors at sea for long durations other than Chakra 1 & 2? No, that testing will need to be

Operational Testing too takes time. Has any submarine other than Chakra 1 & 2 dived to greater depths? No. Arihant will gradually dive to greater depths. Has any submarine other than Chakra 1 & 2 done long distance & higher endurance voyages? No, gradually voyages of greater duration need to be carried out.

K-152 Nerpa was launched in October 2008. Entered service with the Russian Navy in 2009. Leased to the IN in 2011 after extensive trials. Commissioned in IN service 4 April 2012. INS Arihant is a new submarine class, and is undergoing trials. Russian Type 971 is a well established class but still takes 4 years from launch to commissioning. INS Arihant should be commissioned before IFR in February 2016.
Last edited by tsarkar on 20 Nov 2015 00:44, edited 3 times in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2015 00:39

So tsarkarji let us understand your point - the reactor is Indian designed or Russian proven design in your opinion? Why are user trials taking so long? The boat has been in the water since 2009? Surely if it was proven design then the sub would be in operational service?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby tsarkar » 20 Nov 2015 00:47

Reactor is Indian designed with Russian design inputs. And there were Russian design inputs to the entire powerplant comprising reactor, heat exchanger, turbine, gears, shaft, propeller and finally a hull around it all.

Reactor by itself is meaningless. It takes more than a reactor to propel a nuclear submarine.

Design inputs doesn't mean proven design.

Trials take time, as explained earlier.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Gagan » 20 Nov 2015 01:11

Yes, even I want to know!
Why is the LCA taking so long to be built and inducted hain ji?
After all its engine has been proven by the americans long long ago, the moog actuators also are proven, so are most of the "Internals" and "components" right? Just turn some screws, fit in the 2052 and lo and behold, we can have 30 squadrons in a jiffy.

tsarkarji, really appreciate your detailed rebuttal, very appropriate and well written.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Raja Bose » 20 Nov 2015 03:58


ADMIN NOTE

Boys and girls, calm down.

@tsarkar, what's with the HUGE BOLDED fonts in your replies??? You want to yell and scream, please take it offline.

@Alka P, no name calling please.

Otherwise warnings, bans and other goodies will get handed out with free shipping.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby sum » 20 Nov 2015 04:41

Gagan wrote:Yes, even I want to know!
Why is the LCA taking so long to be built and inducted hain ji?
After all its engine has been proven by the americans long long ago, the moog actuators also are proven, so are most of the "Internals" and "components" right? Just turn some screws, fit in the 2052 and lo and behold, we can have 30 squadrons in a jiffy.

tsarkarji, really appreciate your detailed rebuttal, very appropriate and well written.

^^ +1...
Very good info provided here from all sides ( other than the not required name calling part)!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Singha » 20 Nov 2015 07:01

tsarkar wrote:Reactor is Indian designed with Russian design inputs. And there were Russian design inputs to the entire powerplant comprising reactor, heat exchanger, turbine, gears, shaft, propeller and finally a hull around it all.

Reactor by itself is meaningless. It takes more than a reactor to propel a nuclear submarine.

Design inputs doesn't mean proven design.

Trials take time, as explained earlier.


I agree there is a huge diff between a reactor that works on land and one that works in the sharp end of the sea - including resistance to severe vibrations caused by nearby explosions of depth charges and torpedoes. also the other part - heat exchanger, turbine, gears, shaft, propeller - we had never done any OEM design for this as all our naval powerplants are western or russian and came with the kinetic drivetrain (like renk gearboxes for the LM2500)...this is where Rus with its exp of building 300 submarines would offer plug n play proven solutions which will pass most of the test points and save a lot of time. so the arihant once it started came up rather quickly infact similar timeline as the license made scorpene from plate cutting to being in water. ofcourse scorpene will need less of trials time. the 200 russian engineers whom MMS thanked in the coconut ceremony would have hand held the fabrication and fitting process.

I dont think there is any "shame" in admitting we took lot of Rus help on this one. the key thing now is do we pair up this reactor or design/license a bigger more efficient design for the SSBN family and whether a new powerful design is needed for the dedicated SSNs which will need 35 knot speed . how quickly we solve these questions will decide timeline of our global power ambitions (and alongwith funding 12 blackjacks when production resumes)

its a bleak and ruthless world out there, any everyone will take a chance to kick our behinds if we delay any further.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Gagan » 20 Nov 2015 08:12

Going forward, a lot will depend on how many N subs or N seaborne reactors India builds.
The more we build, the more experimentation and indeginization of the technology will happen.
If our N sub building ends at close to a dozen, in small batches even then India gains by further refining understanding, and making different sizes and capacities.

If there is a bigger sub planned, then this reactor will probably need to be scaled up for example.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby ShauryaT » 20 Nov 2015 08:14

Singha wrote:I dont think there is any "shame" in admitting we took lot of Rus help on this one. the key thing now is do we pair up this reactor or design/license a bigger more efficient design for the SSBN family and whether a new powerful design is needed for the dedicated SSNs which will need 35 knot speed . how quickly we solve these questions will decide timeline of our global power ambitions (and alongwith funding 12 blackjacks when production resumes)

its a bleak and ruthless world out there, any everyone will take a chance to kick our behinds if we delay any further.
Also, if we can scale and change the design suitably to fit an aircraft carrier?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Singha » 20 Nov 2015 09:13

OEMs will also learn more of the overall picture than building their own part to spec. I am sure renk has a back and forth understanding of everything from the propeller to the engine to make their famous gearboxes.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby tsarkar » 20 Nov 2015 09:21

@ Admin - Karan increased the font size of what he selectively wanted to highlight. I just followed his precedent.

In addition, Karan has a habit of insulting & deriding others posters, Admirals & institutions, when facts provided went against his pet personal speculations. Examples of this are underlined below -
Karan M wrote: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. :lol:

He has no logic or facts to prove his pet speculations, so he goes on deriding the personnel & institution.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 10:14

The Design of ATV has clear Rubin Design Bureau double hull infulence on it , Ideally India should have opted for single hull design as our submarine operate in Warm Water like most of Western Submarine that opted for Single Hull Design , The Ruskies need double hull as most of the time their subs operate under Arctic Ice and most part of the year their port is frozen hence Double Hull prevents direct contact with pressure hull and adds to reserve buoyancy at the cost of increased tonnage and complexity to build and maintain

Plus India has no experience in designing a Conventional Sub much less a SSK , If you check the history of Nuclear Submarine Development of any nations till date that deploys it followed a long precedent of building SSK since WW2 , even the Chinese had history of making reverse engineered Romeo and other soviet design before they designed a Nuke Sub albeit a bad one to start with and even now they are struggling with capable Nuke Sub as ONI released Noise Level ( if you want to believe ONI estimate) Shows they are worse then Delta 3 in noise level , Even the Yuan class SSK is a double hull copy of Russian Kilo , BTW even Chinese dont need a double hull Submarine because they dont operate in cold/icy water but they faithfully copy what they have

The fact that we still import a French Design for SSK and are in market of P-75I shows we are yet to build our own design SSK not withstanding the Sonar , ESM and other stuff we make that we incorporated in Kilos. SSBN/SSN are order of magnitude more complex to build compared to SSK as the industrial base and experitise needed by those building dock are of a different magnitude.

I would suggest any one interested in Sub and specifically Nuke sub to read this specific book by Norman Polmar an authoritive person on the subject

Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines, 1945-2001
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Submarin ... lmar+Books

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Singha » 20 Nov 2015 11:03

true - its a long way from having a gearset, chain and wheels in hand to knowing how to cobble it all together flawlessly into a quality road bike.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby hnair » 20 Nov 2015 11:12

Singha wrote: (and alongwith funding 12 blackjacks when production resumes)


:lol: I was thinking of you, when I watched that awesome blackjack in action video from yesterday. When that rotary launcher dropped the first KH101 and then softly turned to get the next one ready for release, you must have exploded...

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby vina » 20 Nov 2015 11:12

The Design of ATV has clear Rubin Design Bureau double hull infulence on it , Ideally India should have opted for single hull design as our submarine operate in Warm Water like most of Western Submarine that opted for Single Hull Design , The Ruskies need double hull as most of the time their subs operate under Arctic Ice and most part of the year their port is frozen hence Double Hull prevents direct contact with pressure hull and adds to reserve buoyancy at the cost of increased tonnage and complexity to build and maintain


Wrong in fact and basic physics. The double hull space is free flooding and the buoyancy contribution of that is ZERO. In fact, the double hull would actually ADD to light weight of the hull and basically decrease the structural efficiency by increasing the proportion of light weight in overall hull displacement.

It CANNOT be any other way. If the spaces between the hull was buoyant and NOT free flooding, it has to be airtight and the outer surface will face the full pressure of the water that must be resisted structurally . It is only when it is free flooding the outer and inner surfaces of the 2nd outer hull does not face any net pressure (equal pressure on both sides of the plate) and does not need stiffening against crushing.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 11:48

^^ Check from page 3 on pro/con of Double Hull versus single hull design

http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/System ... 8793ae194c

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm

the Akula is double-hulled with considerable distance between the outer and inner hulls to reduce the possible damage to the inner hull.
The submarines feature double hull construction, dramatically increasing the reserve buoyancy of the submarine by as much as three times over that of a single hull craft. Ballast tanks and other gear are located between the inner and outer hulls, and limber holes are provided for the free-flooding sections between the hulls. Akula class submarines incorporate limber hole covers that can be closed to reduce or eliminate this source of unwanted noise.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby vina » 20 Nov 2015 12:19

Austin wrote: The submarines feature double hull construction, dramatically increasing the reserve buoyancy of the submarine by as much as three times over that of a single hull craft.


Austin, I really really know what I am talking about here. You CAN put more put more buoyancy tanks outside the pressure hull in a double hull boat and get additional reserve buoyancy over a single hull, where the buoyancy tanks will be inside the pressure hull and yes, you can and will put fuel tanks and other tanks outside the pressure hull as well. The "Reserve" tanks will normally be filled , but can be blown if needed in dire situations of significant damage.(Think of it as if you have to inflatable Zodiacs in collapsed condition fixed to the side of a boat, and if needed can be inflated to keep the boat from sinking if the hull is breached). But that doesnt mean that the entire space between the inner hull and outer hull is a giant water tight buoyancy tank. Those are free flooding spaces and the buoyancy there is ZERO.

Ballast tanks and other gear are located between the inner and outer hulls, and limber holes are provided for the free-flooding sections between the hulls. Akula class submarines incorporate limber hole covers that can be closed to reduce or eliminate this source of unwanted noise.


Yes. This the true and operative part of the story. The bulk (overwhelming) space between the hulls will be free flooding and have ZERO buoyancy. In fact the ballast tank design between the Russian and Western ones are different. The western ones have ballast tanks that are open at the bottom the Russian ones have lids that open and close on top and bottom. (famous photos of western ones spouting air out of ballast tanks like a whale when they are taking in ballast to dive will never be seen in Russian types , google up for those, the western ones are like a giant bell jar with air that are inverted on water, with a valve on top. ) .

Notice, the limber holes in the Akula are closed AFTER taking in water and there anyway will be small holes to keep the pressure inside the free flooding spaces the same on either side of the plating of the outer hull. It can't be any other way. or the outer hull will have to be the pressure hull to prevent it from getting crushed.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20716
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Philip » 20 Nov 2015 13:07

There are pros and cons of double hulls.Some subs even have partial double hulls. Since quieting tech is highly classified,and whether such hulls have internal quieting material in addition to the external tiles,the debate goes on. However,double hulls possess greater strength.Talking to some of our veteran submariners,the SRakshak catastrophe showed that most of the hull of the sub was still intact and thus prevented the other subs and warships nearby from being affected.They said that had it been one of the U-Boats that had exploded,we would've lost at least two subs+.In addition,there is a lot of eqpt. that can be located between the two hulls,sensors,decoys,commn. buoys,mini-screws for quiet running,etc.This allows for cleaner spaces in the inner hull.

Getting back to the ATV reactor origin,it is most likely that our design was helped along and vetted by the Russians,as they may have had to adhere to to intl. nuclear treaties. It also explains the "lease" of nuclear subs,getting round the same problem. There should be no problem in us building a larger and more powerful N-reactor using the same "route" for the larger SSBNs.In fact this route allows us like the BMos JV,to drastically cut down the time in "reinventing the wheel" at great expense and time.
One is waiting to see the outline of the next ATV.Past time for its launch?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Singha » 20 Nov 2015 14:31

another feature of the Ru subs is a strong sail to push through a meter of article ocean ice and floes. they practiced surfaced firing also in that mode.
none of their subs except delta class have diving planes on the sail perhaps to avoid damage.

khan sabebs older subs used to do it by folding the fins vertically. but newer designs like seawolf and virginia have deleted the sail fins.

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ ... subice.jpg

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 14:54

vina wrote:You CAN put more put more buoyancy tanks outside the pressure hull in a double hull boat and get additional reserve buoyancy over a single hull, where the buoyancy tanks will be inside the pressure hull and yes, you can and will put fuel tanks and other tanks outside the pressure hull as well. The "Reserve" tanks will normally be filled , but can be blown if needed in dire situations of significant damage.


Yes thats correct they probably have more buoyancy tanks in space between inside and outside hull and thats where the 3x reserve buoyancy comes from.

The rest of space are just free flooding areas

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Austin » 20 Nov 2015 14:59

Singha wrote:another feature of the Ru subs is a strong sail to push through a meter of article ocean ice and floes. they practiced surfaced firing also in that mode.
none of their subs except delta class have diving planes on the sail perhaps to avoid damage.

khan sabebs older subs used to do it by folding the fins vertically. but newer designs like seawolf and virginia have deleted the sail fins.

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/ ... subice.jpg


In the book of Norman Polmar I quoted , The Typhoon SSBN broke through 2.5-3 m of thick ice in one of the exercise and fired its SLBM but then it was also in sub yard for many months due to internal damage cause by the ice to the sub.

Breaking ice is not without its own drawback like the crew of Titanic would have found out but then you dont get chance to fire a SLBM more than once in your life time :lol:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Singha » 20 Nov 2015 16:13

thats not good. they would need periodic practice runs to get it right when the time comes...

but might be a moot point with arctic ice perhaps all gone in a few decades.

the ice breakers safely break ice, is not by "hitting/pushing" the ice like a sub has to do., but "climbing" over the pack and using the ships weight to open cracks to be exploited. special hull forms too to direct the debris safely under and to the side. seems like niche area of naval architecture.

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

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby pushkar.bhat » 21 Nov 2015 09:13

Been a silent reader for some time now on this thread. Lets face it we had a reactor way back in 1996 on land. And that reactor worked. The challenge was always on how to package it into the hull. More over since the Design layout can impact the performance we needed friendly advice on it. The Russians helped primarily in this area. Lets face it without the help they provided that Indian Design by MAE was not going to sail anywhere forget about fitting into a nuclear submarine. So while Mr. Kakodkar may be right he is partially right.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 21 Nov 2015 10:09

Only from Indians could you expect self derision! Some posters here are disgusting and should ask for Russian/French/American citizenship. It is acceptable that certain obstacles received foreign design inputs. It still took a long time and is still being tested out because this is a Indian design. Why is that so difficult to digest for the pimps of foreign suppliers?

India must build on this research and development and look at ways to develop an indigenous sub line based on experience gained from Arihant/Aridhaman and follow on subs and the Scorpenes.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby member_29172 » 21 Nov 2015 10:26

Very few if any links have been provided to prove that Russian help was absolutely necessary or was even sought regaring the reactor, as usual the need for proving it's not Indian is more than proving it is. While sermons on jingoism will be doled out. Because ofcourse is someone objects to a seemingly false and unsubstantiated statement about an Indian product, it must be jingoism not a valid objection.

Now what if I claimed something similar about a foreign weapon system? Immidiately demands for links and sources would be made, some might even say that only official statements made by the foreign country's govt or military count :roll:

Why isn't the latter behavior shown for idiotic statements about India or Indian products as well?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20716
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2015 10:30

And where do you think the ATV tech support came from? Mars?Scorpenes? Totally French! U-209s? Totally German.We haven't been able to even make a mini-sub and even out UAV programme has hit the dirt with the last of 4 Nishants with the Army crashing a couple of days ago.

Mastering sub tech is the most difficult of all.The tech is v.closely guarded.We should be happy that some nations are willing to assist us.Look at the latest French statement,that they "will not provide India with advanced sub tech" in the bid for the 12 subs for OZ! It will take us a couple of decades before we are able to develop our indigenous sub tech.Look how China has struggled espite there being no shortage of money for its sub ambitions. Here,the IN has to beg on its knees for the GOI to address the problem.The Cong. did b*gger all for 10 years why the sub fleet has barely half a dozen subs combat capable according to some reports.

This is a report some months old,but indicates a poss. deal for more N-subs from Russia.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ndia-12997

Russia's Eyes Massive Nuclear Submarine Deal with India
Zachary Keck
May 29, 2015

Russia may help India build nuclear submarines and stealth warships, according to Indian media reports.

Last week India’s Economic Times reported that the Indian conglomerate Reliance Infrastructure—which owns stakes in numerous Indian defense companies—is seeking Russian assistance for programs to locally produce nuclear submarines and other stealth warships.

According to the report, top Reliance executives were in Moscow last week to meet with Russian defense officials about finding a partner for a joint venture between a Russian defense company and Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering, India’s largest defense shipyard, which Reliance has an 18 percent stake in. Specifically, Reliance is looking for a Russian partner with the “requisite technology expertise for manufacturing warships in India.”

As the Economic Times points out, the meetings come on the heels of India’s Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approving a plan for an Indian company to locally manufacture six nuclear submarines and seven stealth warships. The initial investment outlay for the project was set at Rs 1 trillion ($15.67 billion.)

Although the Russian government refused to specifically confirm the report, it did sound receptive to such a possibility.

"The Russian side is open to negotiations with Indian partners on various projects, including cooperation and JV [joint ventures] to manufacture modern defense equipment," a Russian official at the embassy in Delhi told ET in response to a query.

For its part, a Reliance official told the Indian newspaper, “We are deeply committed to investments in the defence sector and the PM's Make In India program,” referring to Indian Prime Minister Modi.

Besides the Make in India program, the prospective joint venture would likely take advantage of the amendments Modi approved in the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) laws last year. FDI is now allowed to make up 49 percent of defense sector projects, up from 26 percent before Modi approved the changes.

Russia would arguably be the most sensible foreign partner for India as the two countries have an extensive defense technology relationship that dates back to the Soviet Union days. This has most certainly included submarines. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the Soviet Union sold India eight Foxtrot-class submarines, which India operated as Vela-class submarines.

India also currently operates a number of Kilo-class submarines, which are designated as Sindhughosh-class submarines by the Indian Navy.

Near the end of the Cold War, India also briefly leased a nuclear-powered submarine from the Soviet Union. More recently, in 2011 India began operating an Akula II nuclear attack submarine under a ten-year lease from Russia. That lease was valued at $970 million.

Despite Modi’s Make in India program, as well as the plan to build six indigenous nuclear-powered submarines, there have been indications that India may lease a second nuclear-powered submarine from Russia. During a trip to Delhi in December of last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia would gladly supply India with more nuclear-powered submarines.

“If India decides to have more contracts to lease nuclear submarines, we are ready to supply,” Putin said at the time.

Later, Indian news outlets reported that negotiations are underway for a second Akula II SSN, which would enter into service with the Indian Navy in 2018.

Besides the nuclear submarines, India is also looking for foreign partners to help it build at least six stealth diesel-electric submarines. Competition for that contract is stiff.

As The National Interest noted back in January, Japan has expressed interest in helping India build Air-Independent Propulsion-equipped submarines. Just this week, the German Defense Minister was in Delhi lobbying for a German company to get the contract.

Other countries reportedly in the mix for that contract include France, Sweden Spain and, of course, Russia.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby pushkar.bhat » 21 Nov 2015 10:51

Alka_P wrote:Very few if any links have been provided to prove that Russian help was absolutely necessary or was even sought regaring the reactor, as usual the need for proving it's not Indian is more than proving it is. While sermons on jingoism will be doled out. Because ofcourse is someone objects to a seemingly false and unsubstantiated statement about an Indian product, it must be jingoism not a valid objection.

Now what if I claimed something similar about a foreign weapon system? Immidiately demands for links and sources would be made, some might even say that only official statements made by the foreign country's govt or military count :roll:

Why isn't the latter behavior shown for idiotic statements about India or Indian products as well?


@Alka_P: I don't expect documentary proof in the form of documents floating around on the internet specially on the ATV project. So its reasonable for people to expect the same from you and others posters. I think we need to appreciate that the anecdotal information mentioned on these forums and then reach ones own conclusions. Needless to say this is not a specific comment on you but a general statement on the discussions over the last couple of posts.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 21 Nov 2015 11:24

Philip, where do you think the Russians and others developed sub tech? From Mars? India developed her own tech with design inputs from Russians. This news report you are using - how credible is it? Not very.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 21 Nov 2015 18:46

pushkar - your post is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby pushkar.bhat » 22 Nov 2015 22:08

Vivek K wrote:pushkar - your post is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.


OT Alert in response to Vivek K:
didn't quite understand what are you trying to achieve. nobody has forced you to type just because you have a net connection and a machine. :)
OT End.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 22 Nov 2015 23:39

It will be difficult for you to understand my perspective puskhar Bhai. Again, you're repeating what I had said earlier. :rotfl:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -3

Postby Vivek K » 23 Nov 2015 00:06

It is fascinating to see so many Indians come out of the woodwork and self righteously proclaim that the hardest achieved Indian accomplishment is a baksheesh from Mother Russia. What next Pushkar Bhai, thank the roosiees for the success of the GSLV and write them a blank check expressing our servitude? Jai Roosiaaa! Mera Roosia Mahan!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishAcharya, dnivas, Google [Bot], kumarn, ravikr, TKiran and 66 guests