Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 05 Dec 2015 00:13

I am a noobie in this, but IMVVHO Bottom line is this:

Whatever be the origin (Russie, Indian, Eye-Talian and what not), do we own the engineering design and also the engineering process maturity to evolve the design to meet our future needs without depending on anyone else.

That is probably all that matters for the future. Again IMVVHO.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Dec 2015 03:12

We most certainly do. But remember its not only about designs and the reactor/hull alone, key subsystems are also required. But carrot and stick of money & economic cooperation can widen the pool of suppliers beyond Russia.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Dec 2015 04:20

Gagan wrote:The light water reactor tech itself is russian.

Nope - read the above article on reactor development.

Both Kudankulam and S1 were developing in parallel.

KK is mostly bought out and VVER-1000. So no development there.

The delhi class destroyer is a prime example of indian design with russian input, russian sensors and weapon. The powerplant is imported as are the propellers.
And this was the first sub India built.

The Delhi class was built in a far shorter timeframe which puts greater pressure on getting everything asap. Plus non strategic program so systems available OTS.

That Kilo, that was stripped down and in repairs for a decade, was how SBC/L&T learnt sub building.

HSL not SBC/L&T.

The reactor itself would have so much advise from the russians as to be nearly impossible to build in the given timeline on our own. And then to navalize that reactor, draw inspiration from the chakra's reactor layout.
Reactor design, sheilding, metallurgy, valves/components/electronics/piping, acoustics management is so extensive, as to have been all needing extensive guidance.

India had 25 years to make the reactor and BARC has significant local industrial capability via suppliers. Russian consultancy was taken but it didn't happen overnight which shows the consultancy was limited.

In the end, it was all done on Indian soil, using the capabilities of BARC, and others.[/quote[

BARC clearly notes the technology was not available and hence they had to develop it.

In the end, India jumped several generations of naval reactor tech to make a very modern reactor. I wouldn't deny the russians their due.

Agree.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Dec 2015 04:21

JTull wrote:With a back handed compliment you're really aren't giving BARC any credit either!

There is a piskology component in that people will believe what they "think is right", despite the details DAE et al release & its also partly because the details were released only late so the entire process was not documented for folks to track.

Its lucky that in hindsight we have had reports on the LCA, Arjun & BMD & Akash programs f.e. over the programs history, otherwise same arguments would have been made. Americans/Russians/French/Israelis gave us everything, we are making it for the first time, so clearly very little would have been local etc etc.

Clearly, its not a data based argument alone anymore & in that I suspect Indranil was correct when he said its pointless debating it since its opinion vs data released by DAE etc & that folks anyhow ignore.

I remember a gent called Shankar when going through BRF archives who was loudly insisting the Indian BMD tests were actually S-3XX tests or just Russian technology. He himself supplied to ISRO etc. But couldn't imagine that the BMD system could have been made by Indians on their own.

So this piskological barrier will only be fixed as and when India makes 2-3 more Arihant and then SSNs. In which case the entire debate will become moot.

People will gradually come around to believing that India can make submarine reactors, hulls etc on its own.

Because the proof will be incontrovertible at that point that India has mastered key items & even if they are coming from jhumri talaya, they are there.

Same way people's concerns viz India's strategic missile programs are now more or less on the backburner since there is not just 1 Agni or Prithvi but many missiles in test, development, induction.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 16:22

No Karan M,
The stripped down Kilo was in SBC all along. Right next to the covered SBC drydock where the ATVs are being built, is another drydock, where the Kilo was kept. It is clearly visible in google earth pictures going back several years.

It was finally refurbished at the HSL dock and reintroduced into service.

And India has never built a light water reactor. Light water reactor tech was russian. India was working on it. Now to expect BARC to come up with a light water reactor - a first built and that too a compact navalized version is not right.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 16:30

I wanted to post a picture of decommissioned Sub / Naval reactors that Russia keeps in Sayda Guba, north of murmansk. The facility has been built with german help. Earlier the reactors were just left in the water and were rotting away.

Those are all submarine / Navalized reactors, about 56+4 odd. Just a few pictures on the internet. Kept/stored in the open, gradually being decommissioned.
Perhaps BARC had access to this or another reactor with designs / tour / joint designing. We can only estimate what level of help.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2015 16:55

^^^^^so the insinuations from the Russian Rakshaks keep coming to destroy Indian h&d!! Can we accept that this is for purely academic reasons or being disarmingly honest or is there some element of dancing to a master's tune in this?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 17:02

There is no russian rakshak.
NO one is dancing to anyone's tune.

This is a purely academic discussion. Since we are splitting hairs about who did what, I am just adding my do paisa to the cacophony OK?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 17:04

What a waste of time this N reactor discussion is.
No one can actually post anything of real substance - doing so will put you on the wrong side of the OSA.
Everyone here is arguing on a useless point bringing up DDM articles !!!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2015 17:08

Everyone is discussing useless points while you slip in stuff about decommissioned reactors and the reactor is Russian without any source. Then you back off claiming academic reasons! Seems to be a Russian Rakshak post to this sdre Indian. Either support your claim about BARC using decommissioned reactors for reference or delete your post!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2015 17:10

Just because you can find stuff on Google Earth does not make that a credible post.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 17:24

Why would you say something like that Vivek K? Are you trying to make things personal?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2015 17:26

People somehow think that the Chakra-1 was the only navalized reactor India had exposure to. I am simply saying that there might be more...

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 06 Dec 2015 00:11

Gagan, Vivek K, please, that's enough, just don't respond to each other ok ? We all have the same interest at heart, and we really don't want to lose valuable long time posters to blue on blue arguments.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 00:22

Gagan wrote:No Karan M,
The stripped down Kilo was in SBC all along. Right next to the covered SBC drydock where the ATVs are being built, is another drydock, where the Kilo was kept. It is clearly visible in google earth pictures going back several years.

It was finally refurbished at the HSL dock and reintroduced into service.

Lets take your statements as correct. So if India had detailed Russian design help way beyond select consultancy and materials/subsystems supply, why would it need to strip a valuable Kilo and reverse engineer it? You can't even see the glaring holes in your arguments.

And India has never built a light water reactor. Light water reactor tech was russian. India was working on it. Now to expect BARC to come up with a light water reactor - a first built and that too a compact navalized version is not right.

India had never built a SAM system. It did so. India had never built radars before. It did so. India had never built Ballistic Missiles before, yet it did so. India had never built a FBW system before, yet once sanctions bit, it went ahead and did so.

In short claims that since India is doing something for the first time, it must and should have received detailed TOT are completely without evidence & hence fail the logic test when compared to what India has achieved on its own, starting from basics and only utilizing consultancy to speed things up.

Further you ignore BARCs decades of experience in the field. In the above examples, India literally started from scratch.

Yes BARC has used consultants but to show pictures of decommissioned Russian reactors on Google Earth and imply they were leveraged for Arihant or are available is bizarre.

Even dealing with these "used" reactors is dangerous, let alone cutting them open and poking around. Your speculation when DAE has categorically stated it did not receive any reactor or TOT and only had consultancy is a rhetorical argument and not factual.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 00:37

Gagan wrote:What a waste of time this N reactor discussion is.
No one can actually post anything of real substance - doing so will put you on the wrong side of the OSA.
Everyone here is arguing on a useless point bringing up DDM articles !!!

Au contraire. Several of those articles are from TS Subramaniam whose reportage on Indian defense affairs has been world class & his access are well established.

They reflect actual interviews with the designers & people who worked on the systems.

There is substance enough. OTOH, your statements rely on unsourced speculation & your opinion versus any sourced facts as in the above. Needless to say DAE's folks like Kakodkar have anyday more authority and credibility on their domain and the program they themselves worked on, rather than any of us on the board.

Their statements are on record as well. Don't dismiss credible sources merely because they directly contradict your speculation on Russian reactors being transferred and what not.

DNA, 2009.

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

You can quibble semantics as you wish, but BARC/DAE have gone on record with the consultancy & made it well known NO TOT was available for the reactor as versus your speculation.
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/crit ... 038061.ece

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.

Russian assistance in speeding up the program by proving Uranium for conversion to fuel for the land based prototype, till the Indian plant sped up has already been mentioned. Even there, BARC had to do the final processing. Russia went to incredible lengths to make sure even fuel supply was for the land based "peaceful" civil reactor & had us do the rest of the heavy lifting, and they'd supply decommissioned reactors or reactor TOT? Where is the logic?

In deal after deal for conventional assets alone, where Russia could transfer less sensitive IP, T-90, Smerch, Mig-29K and what not India has to armtwist the Russians to even stick to the original agreements re: TOT or service, and suddenly, with the ATV, we have some super special deal going on wherein everything is available above and beyond what DAE states was on the table.

Besides the ATV timelines also bear out that the reactor development was a consistent effort all the way from developing the fuel to the reactor design and development and not some drop in TOT or magical acceleration post a certain date. http://www.frontline.in/multimedia/arch ... 58144a.pdf

In short, you are making incredible claims but have no credible sources to back anything, whilst decrying actual statements from people who led the program as being unreliable/DDM etc, when enough evidence already exists to contradict your statements.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 00:38

There is interesting stuff in the BARC site as well, which most of us on this board missed. Ah, GOI.

BTW BARC itself notes Arihant was underway in December 2014.

While current reports are about Arihant in harbor trials and what not.

http://www.barc.gov.in/presentations/20150126.pdf
66th Republic Day - Speech by Director, BARC

Nuclear Submarine ‘Arihant’ started its first sea voyage on December 15, 2014 and subsequently demonstrated operation
at full power. We are well on our way towards the creation of nuclear triad.

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

Founder's Day Address Friday, October 30,2009
By Dr.Srikumar Banerjee
Director, BARC

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

The compact Pressurised Water Reactor was designed for this purpose with several special
features; such as, very quick response for power ramping, extremely stable under ship
motions and resistance against exposure to very high acceleration, resulting from
eventual depth charges. Since the nuclear reactor is fuelled with high fissile containing
fuel, it can supply energy in the submerged condition for an extended period without
refueling. Many systems and equipment designed and built were first of its kind in the
country. The entire steam generating plant has been designed to give highly reliable
offshore operation in a completely isolated environment. Control and instrumentation
design is fault tolerant and requires minimum operator interventions. An elaborate
diagnostic system enables a very high availability factor. Many new materials and
technologies have been developed and new infrastructure has been created for this
project. The development of the steam generating plant of Arihant was preceded by
setting up of the land based prototype system at Kalpakkam known as PRP. The
reactor in PRP has been working since last three years and has served as a technology
demonstrator for the compact pressurized water reactor-with a load following capability.
This has proved several design features including fuel performance and established the
reliability of various systems and equipment.

The entire propulsion plant with primary secondary, electrical and propulsion system along with its integrated control was packed in the aft end of a land based submarine hull designed and built specifically for this purpose. This prototype is serving as a training centre for the crew for the nuclear
submarine. The crew training is further facilitated with the help of an indigenously
designed and built full scope simulator. With the successful development of compact pressurized water reactor, BARC
has ushered in the field of PWR technology in the country.

And the fact the LWR is being progressed further.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... r-version/

The Department of Atomic Energy is in the process of preparing “detailed designs” of the 900 MWe pressurised water reactor for approval by the regulatory authority — the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), according to a government official involved in the exercise. The design builds on the indigenously developed small-sized LWR developed over the past eight years, a compact version of which was deployed aboard the INS Arihant — the first Indian nuclear-powered submarine.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 00:48

LOL, while we have reports on harbor trials and what not in 2015, from 2013 in reality.

Like I have said before, our tech establishment are very meticulous record keepers. Instead of engaging in CT, just correlate what they state.

http://www.barc.gov.in/presentations/fddir14.pdf

Propeller shaft of Arihant was rotated for the first time with
nuclear steam on 11.12.13 i.e. December 11, 2013. Subsequently
most harbour trials have been completed and the vessel is getting
ready for sea voyage.

Founder’s Day Address 2014
SP-1 Propeller shaft of Arihant was rotated for the first time with
nuclear steam on 11.12.13 i.e. December 11, 2013. Subsequently
most harbour trials have been completed and the vessel is getting
ready for sea voyage.

SP-2 Cold criticality experiment on reload core of Arihant was
completed at P4 facility, and later, hot criticality and associated physics experiments, were also carried out. After completion of
orificing activities, the core is now ready for shipping

2015

SP-1 Nuclear Submarine ‘Arihant’ started its first sea voyage
on December 15, 2014 and subsequently demonstrated operation at
full power.
Further, sea trials are progressing well and the boat is
getting ready for induction.

So folks Arihant is likely very near operational capability by now. Over the past year it has been engaged in weapons and sensor tests & detailed platform trials.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Dec 2015 01:12

Karan M wrote:....BTW BARC itself notes Arihant was underway in December 2014. While current reports are about Arihant in harbor trials and what not. ....

Dec is commonly known, and official date:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Vis ... epage=true

Updated: December 16, 2014 20:01 IST
Arihant sails out of harbour

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 02:41

Aditya, you are right. I missed some of these reports or just didn't remember.

Amongst some confusing reports, there are a bunch more that trace the HAT-->SAT trials progress through December to this year.

Its good that we have some detailed info from the BARC side that the trials are going well and the handover at Fleet Review or soon thereafter might hence be a reality.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Dec 2015 06:25

Arihant is supposed to join the fleet review in Feb.

The Arihant's front end looks a lot like the 877 subs, the placement of the radar and the torpedo tubes. Only the vanes are on the sail and not retractable. The 877 also has a bulbous nose which curves down at the front, which is different on the Arihant.

I hope crew comfort will be very high. The recent IN ships have really well designed crew quarters and very high crew comfort.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2015 18:45

On another note....has there been any talk of creating a arihant variant for use as an ssn, the weight and displacement seem to better reflect ssn specs. It would fit the rfi specs quite nicely. Iirc, it is the speed that makes a difference for Hunter killer type ops...a modded arihant might go a long way in addressing depleting numbers..

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Dec 2015 22:22

I think the SSN and SSBN classification may not be suitable for our nuclear boats. We seem to have finding solutions for our requirements which are not identical to US and USSR. Mini SSBN we have in Arihant class may be used as SSN in case of need with modifications to use Nirbhay etc for anti-ship operations.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Dec 2015 00:16

Yagnasri wrote:I think the SSN and SSBN classification may not be suitable for our nuclear boats. We seem to have finding solutions for our requirements which are not identical to US and USSR. Mini SSBN we have in Arihant class may be used as SSN in case of need with modifications to use Nirbhay etc for anti-ship operations.

I do not know, why do we say that, the classifications may not fit. The IN wanted our ATV project to always be an SSN, until the events of 1998 changed the priority to build an SSBN. So, we converted our SSN project to an SSBN, by some increase of dimensions to be able to launch the ballistic missiles. Now, it would be great to have a large SSBN that can be as fast as an SSN but that would be a whole other level of technological challenge to produce enough power to drive such a large vessel at the required speeds of 30+ knots of consistent speeds. Even the propulsion of the Alula II have a fairly poor conversion ratio from thermal to electric energy.

We have a recently approved SSN project by DAC, while the exact dimensions of those will be known after many years, the gold standard for the IN for such an SSN would be the Chakra. SSN and SSBN fit different profiles and are a perfect fit for what we need. Our large IOR AOR needs such fast moving subs that can be submerged for long durations. I do not think, we should invest in more than 4 boats for second strike purposes, they are more than enough. We need to focus on SSN now.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Dec 2015 00:43

When we build enough Arihant-class vessels, we might be confident enough to build both SSNs and SSBNs. Then we can turn the arihant class into SSGNs like in the wet dreams of many here

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2015 01:09

only 3 is planned.. correct?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 07 Dec 2015 18:05

Plan was for 3, based on the Arihant feedback 3 more with refinements and improvements.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Dec 2015 06:49

Here is a question:

How many will believe

1. If I, an SDRE state that I can design a nuke.

OR

2. If I, an SDRE can only design a nuke with Gora Blonde eyed-Blue haired help.

Your answer determines your opinion on the Nuke sub.

There is a 3rd statement, I can design a nuke which not just surpasses anything designed so far but can teach a thing or three to the Gora Blonde eyed-Blue haired. Of course, when I make that statement - I will be called a be-hesiyat (one without any status).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2015 08:29

1. for me
2. for others

And I bet, every 1.2 billion would give that answer.

member_29259 · Post by **member_29259** » 08 Dec 2015 08:58

1 for me
2 for lots of others
...

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 08 Dec 2015 12:56

disha wrote:Here is a question:

How many will believe

1. If I, an SDRE state that I can design a nuke.

OR

2. If I, an SDRE can only design a nuke with Gora Blonde eyed-Blue haired help.

Your answer determines your opinion on the Nuke sub.

There is a 3rd statement, I can design a nuke which not just surpasses anything designed so far but can teach a thing or three to the Gora Blonde eyed-Blue haired. Of course, when I make that statement - I will be called a be-hesiyat (one without any status).

Seriously though, wrt the highlighted part above, if you remember post-Pokhran-II the amount of data the SDRE scientists had to publish in open, to "gain acceptance", not exactly from the Gora Blonde-haired Blue-eyed scientist types (they knew fully well, what just got demonstrated), but from the assorted RNI/NRNI/MUTU (and that included a healthy dose of uber-patriotic-Jernails-and-Kernails as well) junta.

Purefool was of course one of them, as was other worthies.

And what followed in 2007-8 "the great-debate" on it, was another example of this unique SDRE trait of self-loathing and naval-gazing of anything indigenous, claimed or otherwise. Many have commented on this trait multiple times in the past, like this one by geethji long back.

What we are witnessing now in this ATV "debate", is the repetitive expression of these traits - so nothing new, really!!

disha · Post by **disha** » 09 Dec 2015 06:37

^^^ Maityaji. Remember! Of course I do and was part of the debate.

The questions on Arihant I agree are on similar lines

post-Pokhran-II the amount of data the SDRE scientists had to publish in open, to "gain acceptance",

And worse I feel that all the self-doubt questions are asked to gain more information!

<begin rant>
For me., the facts are the following:

1. ATK works and works well. The proof is that Indians are alive.
2. ATK was given by martians with a relief when they learnt that MMS could actually speak. Indians have no contribution to it., other than putting a steering wheel on it from a Maruti Zen.
3. ATK carries detergents only.

And more importantly., it does not matter where it came from and how it came as long as ATK is prowling!

Some of us do not realize the cusp at which India is standing. We as a nation are commissioning a submarine every 9 months. Which developing nation (other than China) can boast of such a capability? Given that., by 2023 (7 yrs from now) we will have additional 9 DE submarines (at least 6 are commited) and at least 3 SSBNs.

And here in ATK discussion all we see is are we or are we not the father of the baby!
<end rant>

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2015 11:22

We have a long,long, way to go to master sub tech and sub design. The Scorpenes are French,some of the eqpt. is.The weaponry entirely,as is the case even with our Russian subs.There is hardly anything desi about the Scorpenes. In fact,as far as conventional AIP sub construction goes,the Pakis are ahead of us! Our key achievements are in the manufacture of sub hulls tx to L&T,some component and machinery systems and the sub sonars aboard both the ATV and Kilos being refitted.The ability to design and manufacture a sub's N-reactor for a 6000t+ N-sub,albeit with some major assistance for Ru, allows us to build out first class of Arihant SSBNs .Later subs of the class with larger displacement,more missiles,will require a more powerful N-reactor design. This from analysis should be within the same dia hull,with an extra long missile compartment the major change.

PS:For some intriguing news of the latest Russian N-sub and 100 MT N-torpedo,ck out the Ru weaponry td.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Dec 2015 20:16

Philip wrote:Later subs of the class with larger displacement,more missiles,will require a more powerful N-reactor design. This from analysis should be within the same dia hull,with an extra long missile compartment the major change.

True that is the desire for S3 and S4 and this extended sub will pay a speed penalty, which some argue is OK for an SSBN. However ideal will be to have either a higher MW reactor or a better conversion from thermal to electric power to at least, have the same propulsion levels as the S2/Arihant. The Russian reactors themselves are not known to have the best thermal to electric conversion. The Akula II's 190 MW converts to only about 32 MW electric power. We shall see what happens. A reactor for the SSN will be an entirely different game and something which I am told will be sourced with Russian "help".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2015 10:57

The SSN/SSGN would not need to be as large as the Arihant,as no BMs need to be carried,only LRCMs,BMos,etc.They could be a bit smaller than the ATV/SSBN class which would make it poss. for the existing reactor to be used unless the life of this reactor isn't all that hot. I doubt if we're planning a sub as large as the Akula. The cost factor would preculde it.If a more powerful one is in the works,all the better,but even that would require much testing at sea to be certified,which would take a few years. The new reactor could probably be used on the larger SSBNs which need to carry more missiles/ICBMs.

Want is sorely missing in the IN's overall strategy is developing research subs and warships,trying out new hull designs,etc. We've used old subs in the past to try out sonars,etc.,but have not developed dedicated subs for sub research.Both the US and Russia have over the decades spent a lot of time and moolah on such subs .At least the S'kirti which was lying idle in the docks at Vizag and took a decade to complete its refit could've been experimented with,adding a BMos module.Our DRDO AIP system is also in the works,planned for the last 2 Scorpenes.This is highly risky as it hasn't been proven.One needs a sub for that .One of the 4 German U-boats could be modified to carry the AIP module after the first Scorpenes are commissioned to iron out any wrinkles.The same sub could then be used to test out other sub tech that require being developed like decoys,anti-torpedo hard kill weaponry,new sonars,etc.
Ck the Ru mil td. for details about Russia's new subs and N-torpedo.The Sarov design in the links,shows how they used this sub first to develop the tech.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2015 22:59

Heh. Some chaiwallah info. Nothing classified etc but interesting as always. So, by sheer coincidence, ran into a gent associated with multiple programs over the years about indigenization plans. Reply, by the end of the series we will almost be completely local, significant emphasis is being given to local sourcing for "all" value items. Items sourced from 3rd party vendors will be localized and replaced as well since in such programs dependence on others is not liked. R&D is leading this effort and industrial houses have cooperated very well.

We will match & beat whatever has been achieved in even big name programs like the Kolkata class. And full capability exists in India now for design and development of submarines based on experience garnered over years, A turned "theory" into practice. At best, we will use infrastructure and consultancy abroad for reaffirming our design choices. Some stuff on P75I as well but very very critical of MOD and IN decision to "shop abroad", basically wastage of effort when it should have been done locally building on A experience. About S "unknown quantity" will know how good it is once it enters service. So trials etc only go so far. French have (as expected) not played by the "spirit" of the game. Provided some design related stuff, held back on others. No surprise. Also some stuff on steel, we are now independent. Steel alone of various forms can make upto a quarter of the actual value of the sub!! A steel is Indian. Make of it what you will, but non equivocal answers.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 15 Dec 2015 00:00

Good to know that. The P-75I should simply be a stretched version of scorpene with USHUS, DRDO AIP and VLS to fire Nirbhay and Brahmos. If time is critical then just get 3 more Scorpene and order 9 P-75I to replace kilos in future.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Dec 2015 01:25

Bheeshma wrote:Good to know that. The P-75I should simply be a stretched version of scorpene with USHUS, DRDO AIP and VLS to fire Nirbhay and Brahmos. If time is critical then just get 3 more Scorpene and order 9 P-75I to replace kilos in future.

Scorpene draft: 5.8m
Brahmos length: 8m

Scorpene is never going to host Brahmos or Nrbhay VLS. This is one of the business cases behind Project 75I.

Brahmos should develop the NG variant which can be fired from TTs and solve this issue. Continue with Scorpene production, scrap P75I and build SSNs to fire Nirbhays and like.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 15 Dec 2015 02:33

The No one is talking about Brahmos, Brahmos-M can be put into Scorpene even Nirbhay. TT launched is useless given it just reduces the number of Torps that can be carried.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Dec 2015 08:41

Did not LA class has 12 tubes for tomahawks? May be that is what we are looking in our SSNs and also at a lessor level in our SSKs.