Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

[shiv]

As for the SSBN, while we will have the three dedicated SSBN based on the Arihant design, it is expected that sometime after the SSN project is well under way, a new larger SSBN will be designed, but that is a far off decision and do not expect more than 2 such new large SSBN’s to be in play. In the meanwhile, multiple options exist to arm LACM on to either of the platforms SSN or SSBN, as operationally multiple options will exist but overall, I do expect the IN to move along classical SSN/SSBN routes with land attack being a secondary role. Your thoughts?

Shaurya given our nuclear doctrine it is certain that none of our subs will be sailing with ready to use nuclear warheads.

The "natural" question that arises from this is "LOL what sort of half assed deterrent do we Indians think we have".

I can only guess that our real nuclear deterrent in the sea will come only after we have 3 Arihant type vessels sailing. Typically, one will be on patrol, one will have just returned and one will be under refit or getting ready to sail. It is the third one that is "ready to sail soon" that will form a key to deterrence. If the balloon goes up or if it looks like war that one wil be armed with nukes and sent off first followed by another.

At all other times the sub that is sailing will act as SSN and take part in missile launch practice and exercises

Just my guess.

BTW what do SSKN and SSGN mean?

[Shreeman]

g is probably guided missiles, cruise or otherwise. K? is there such a term?

without the N, it was old style diesel electrics.

[member_28386]

I am sure that this is just a discussion by people who are interested / obsessed / curious about Indian Nuclear Submarine technology and achievements. Certainly nobody, I expect, has a clear picture about the status or capabilities of our Nuclear submarine and other forthcoming planned or under construction submarines.

The entire discussion is for the purpose of getting to know it better somewhat like the poem 'Six Blind Men of Indostan' trying to explore the Arihant N- Elephant. It creates a lot of confusion but some hopefully accurate information and tips are released to enlighten us.

Thanks to Tsarkar, Philip and all other veterans for their inputs. The 'S' designation was certainly a good indication of Indian Naval thought process and other constraints that the Navy faces. SSBN and SSGN are of ofcourse nomenclatures to be used in combination or interchangeably and the as the Chinese state...'It does not matter as long as the Cat is Black or White so long as it catches the mice'.

[Philip]

The "S" nomenclature in the IN is the distinct number given to a sub with t same method used for shipss.F-1 for frigates,D for destroyers,etc. S for subs. The numbering on Ru warships,etc. was confusing as they often changed them when they switched fleets. SSBN,SSGN,SSN are the general nomenclature used for N-sub types.Any IN sub with dedicated BM/ICBMs will be known as an SSBN by other navies.

[Shreeman]

Phillip,

It is how the oscars were a step child, so to speak, in russian navy. The romanized/latin name for "gainda" might be something. I no longer memorise it. And indian tulsi is hardly wild basil. Similarly, by nature of size and role, it is just possible that this niche craft does not fit the rules laid down by the glorious west. After all, the G in SSNs was added only after a long while of SSN and SSBNs existing.

I say S stands for SdreN, and it doesnt really fit any one of those moulds but checks some boxes from each category. Midget SSBN, mini SSGN SSN(B-Mki), Oscarski, whatever. Given fleet limitations, the ship will likely always load somwthing more than B and torpedoes, especially as the full B load may take its own time to fill out. Like oscar/ohio, whether its G,B or G/B, B/G, why are we beholden to western genders?

Yes, S in numbering of S2 etc is like F, D,P. No argument there.

[Philip]

Shree,the point is whatever we use as nomenclature for our subs,etc., internationally,there will be a global std. description to make it easy for other navies to categorise our assets. Take a look at JFS,etc..

[tsarkar]

The point I am making is that we've unique requirements, and we developed a unique solution for our requirements.

I understand only US or Russian or European strategy & equipment is published, so most readers go by their concepts.

However, trying to force fit our unique solution to their concepts like SSN, SSBN, SSGN is neither accurate nor is it fair to our unique solution.

How did we come to our own unique solution?

A. Lets start with submarines whose primary role is carrying only ballistic missiles (SSBN). Should we build those?

1. These submarines carry 12-24 very heavy ballistic missiles. They take time to dive & surface. They're not very maneuverable.

2. While launching missiles, the noise can be detected by enemy ships and submarines quickly. The heat signature can be detected by early warning satellites. Anti Submarine aircraft can be quickly cued to these large submarines. US & UK have 4 submarines. If one is sunk, 25% of their strategic deterrence is lost. If two are sunk, 50% of their strategic deterrence is lost.

3. SSBN economically is like life insurance. You pay premium that is effective if you die. However, no one wants to die. So the premium money is useless unless you die. Unless there is a nuclear war, SSBN will never be used. So for all their lives, they are idle assets. The US converted 4 Ohio class submarines to carry conventional missiles because they were idle assets.

How does a multirole submarine address these issue?

1. With lesser number of ballistic missiles (4), its more maneuverable.

2. With missiles distributed across multiple submarines, you lose only a small fraction of your deterrence if one or two are sunk

3. With tubes able to carry conventional strike missiles, they can participate in a conventional war, yet rapidly re-role in the event of nuclear war. They no longer remain idle assets.

B. Lets come to guided missile submarines (SSGN). Should we build those?

Very useful in conventional wars. However missile launch can be detected, so only used against countries with minimal or no ASW capabilities, like Yugoslavia, Iraq & Libya. More number of missiles like Russian Oscar or US Ohio impacts maneuverability.

Again, a multi role submarine, with lesser number of missiles (12) keeps the boat nimble. The number of missiles is no less than that carried by US Los Angeles or Virginia classes.

@Austin - Brahmos Land Attack missile in IN offers a more effective SAR seeker. All three missiles - Brahmos, Nirbhay & K-15 can be fired from the smaller tubes.

C. Lets come to nuclear powered submarines carrying only torpedoes (SSN). Should we build those?

These are the simplest to build. However, if we can add incremental capability with a fraction of the cost without impairing maneuverability, then why not? This is the reason Los Angeles and Virginia classes added Tomahawk tubes.

What happens if an enemy attacks Arihant which results in an nuclear explosion and destroys the fleet?

Does any submarine really need to sail alongside a fleet?

For e.g. you should have a good radar to detect an enemy ship

Does any submarines have radar other than those needed for harbor navigation?

Also, Arihant haven't been known to have any capability to launch any cruise missile like Brahmos.

What about this?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 091295.cms

It exactly fits the role of an SSBN and hence all jingo's have rightly categorized it as SSBN.

Then why waste time & effort in tubes that can carry multiple types of missiles?

BTW, Navy hasn't it come up with any nomenclature because it only operated one type of sub, that is SSKs.

What category does our Type 877s with Land Attack Klub missiles come under? They have been serving since 2000.

Can there be multipurpose submarines?

We invented the multirole submarine.

Let us not force-fit our unique solution into other categories.

Remains to be seen how the newer designs pan out, however, the multirole philosophy will remain the same.

[ShauryaT]

Remains to be seen how the newer designs pan out, however, the multirole philosophy will remain the same.

IOW: You expect the new SSN design to be able to fire ballistic loads? Another question: Do you deem speeds of 30 knots+ to be essential to our needs for an SSN role - hate to compare but like the US, UK, Russian and Chinese SSN's do? Thought the primary idea for the six SSN's was to provide CBG fleet protection, two each?

[nirav]

@tsarkar ji:
Even if the sub is with the fleet, how does an attack on the sub cause a massive nuclear explosion that "destroys" the fleet ?!

A nuclear mijjile won't go off in a sympathetic detonation to an external attack by conventional attack. If the reactor is compromised, it would still not go off to destroy the fleet..

[ShauryaT]

Shaurya given our nuclear doctrine it is certain that none of our subs will be sailing with ready to use nuclear warheads.

The "natural" question that arises from this is "LOL what sort of half assed deterrent do we Indians think we have".

I can only guess that our real nuclear deterrent in the sea will come only after we have 3 Arihant type vessels sailing. Typically, one will be on patrol, one will have just returned and one will be under refit or getting ready to sail. It is the third one that is "ready to sail soon" that will form a key to deterrence. If the balloon goes up or if it looks like war that one wil be armed with nukes and sent off first followed by another.

At all other times the sub that is sailing will act as SSN and take part in missile launch practice and exercises

Just my guess.

BTW what do SSKN and SSGN mean?

Shiv ji: I have no idea why you say none of our subs will sail with nuclear warheads? Neither do I follow the "natural" question part. Maybe I am dense. I am expecting an investment into command and control structures to manage the SSBN fleet, if not already done so.

As mentioned in the earlier post, I am expecting the IN to move to a more classical posture of the SSN/SSBN fleet. Where the SSN along with other fleet and aerial assets protect our prized and dedicated SSBN assets. Expect the SSN to meet the challenge on the high seas and the SSBN to be in the safety of littoral waters. This is my understanding of the IN philosophy based on its investment patterns seen in the past. As it stands now, I am not expecting the Arihant and its follow ons to play the role of hunter/killer, interdiction or fleet protection.

Tsarkar states that the multi role philosophy affords us better redundancy of available platforms without much of a compromise to agility. But do agree at the end of the day, the IN will use what is available but meanwhile, what I know is they are fighting for an Akula type reactor to give them speed in the SSN.

[nirav]

De mating of warheads on Arihants BMs makes no sense at all.

This sub and its follow ons are going to be Indias assured second strike.its not much of an assured second strike vehicle if the nukes are not onboard only !

[tsarkar]

IOW: You expect the new SSN design to be able to fire ballistic loads?

Yes, I expect multirole submarines to remain.

Do you deem speeds of 30 knots+ to be essential to our needs for an SSN role

By SSN role, these are submarines designed to hunt other submarines & ships

Diesel Electric submarines are very silent when operating in electric batteries. However, speed is very less with batteries. So is endurance. When in transit, or recharging batteries, they are noisier. A DE submarine is a sniper of the deeps. But like every sniper, they're good when nearly motionless. They lose effectiveness when in motion.

Now, nuclear submarines are more noisier because of pumps circulating coolant and steam turbines. All nuclear submarines are capable of high speeds, its the ability to keep noise low at high speed that is critical.

So, for a nuclear submarine to deal with a DE submarine, it has to use active sonar and make high speed interceptor slash & run attacks. If it lingers, it'll be vulnerable to the sniping DE submarine. It also needs the high speed to outrun torpedoes. Even though it'll be noisy at high speeds, the DE submarine wont be able to catch up or keep up with it.

Which is why IN was not euphoric when IN Type 877EKM tracked a US Nuclear Submarine in restricted area in recent Malabar exercises. Had the area not been restricted, the nuclear submarine could've used active sonar over long range and attacked and ran. The DE submarine would not have the speed or endurance under those circumstances.

It is similar to air combat between supersonic and subsonic fighters. In 1965, a Pakistani Starfighter attempted to dogfight with an Indian Mystere and the Starfighter went down. Because the supersonic fighter was less maneuverable than the subsonic fighter. Similarly, in 1971, an IAF MiG-21 attempted to dogfight with a Pakistani Sabre and the MiG-21 was shot down. The supersonic fighter in both cases should have made high speed interception passes instead of attempting to dogfight.

Thought the primary idea for the six SSN's was to provide CBG fleet protection, two each?

Submarines provide fleet protection like scouts do. They do not travel with the fleet but scout miles ahead of the main formation and sanitize the area beforehand. In 1971, before our corvettes and missile boats hit Karachi, our submarines were already in position to scout and reconnoiter the route and area. They were ordered not to engage the enemy unless themselves engaged or enemy was clearly identified, to avoid jeopardizing their fleet protection mission.

In WW2 Battle of Midway, the failure of Japanese submarines to scout ahead of the main fleet and detect US Aircraft Carrier has been cited as a major failure.

US Navy submarines were ordered to radio Japanese locations & aircraft carriers before attacking when operating in a fleet protection role.

[tsarkar]

@tsarkar ji:
Even if the sub is with the fleet, how does an attack on the sub cause a massive nuclear explosion that "destroys" the fleet ?!

A nuclear mijjile won't go off in a sympathetic detonation to an external attack by conventional attack. If the reactor is compromised, it would still not go off to destroy the fleet..

You're absolutely right, Nirav, because of the multiple safeties.

But in the first place, submarines never sail in formation with the fleet. Just like snipers don't march with the troops.

[Supratik]

SSBNs coming back to base to load and going back for deterrent patrol doesn't make sense. Besides the potential adversaries (not Pak) have the capability of vaporizing the underground pen in a first strike. Also if SSBNs are going to be multirole why have dedicated SSNs.

[Singha]

i suspect with new syria type bush wars coming along, part of the Borei and delta silos will be repurposed into arihant/virginia style kalibr multiple tubes. the yasen already carries a formidable load of some 40 such tubes + TT launched missiles.

[member_28108]

Since we are have built extremely low frequency communication program it implies the nuclear warheads will be mated as the ELF transmission is a few characters a minute which essentially means it will give the go and no go for a nuclear strike. That is what it is used for and so any country using an ELF system would automatically have mated warheads.

[sohamn]

@tsarkar

But in the first place, submarines never sail in formation with the fleet. Just like snipers don't march with the troops.

SSNs do sail with carrier strike groups especially true for a nuclear navy . please read - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carr ... e/cvbg.asp

You're absolutely right, Nirav, because of the multiple safeties.

An SSBN armed with nuclear missile, if attacked, could result in nuclear explosion.

Yes, I expect multirole submarines to remain.

Indian navy never intends to have multi role subs and hence they are ordering a separate line of SSNs. Read - http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... ean-region

Also, Arihant haven't been known to have any capability to launch any cruise missile like Brahmos.

What about this?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 091295.cms

This report just says that Brahmos is ready for underwater launch. It doesn't mean Arihant can launch brahmos. As I said before FCS, firing solution, targeting designation, gas generator and other electronics should be compatible for Brahmos launch.

What category does our Type 877s with Land Attack Klub missiles come under? They have been serving since 2000.

still SSKs because the missiles are in hunter killer role. They have no land attack or ground support mission.

See TSarkar - you are touting this big new idea of multi role submarine, i.e. a sub that will undertake the following roles
- nuclear 2nd strike
- hunter killer
- land attack
- fleet support

Now please answer my following questions -
a) Don't you think these requires highly specialized capability?
b) Have you seen any data or article indicating this is the IN view ?
c) What happens if you use Agni also for conventional attack ?

[nirav]

An SSBN armed with nuclear missile, if attacked, could result in nuclear explosion.

what "nuclear explosion" man ? Are you saying that a nuclear warhead will become critical and detonate if there is an explosion nearby in case of an attack ?

[Aditya G]

Fascinating stuff as usual sarkar. I hadn't quite imagine SSN* will fare off against a conventional diesel one.

How do SSK*s actually operate? I am thinking a task force of Vikramaditya, Mysore and Talwar are moving at 20 knots ... 250 clicks off Gwadar, how will Agosta even approach this formation?

*

... A DE submarine is a sniper of the deeps. But like every sniper, they're good when nearly motionless. They lose effectiveness when in motion

....

So, for a nuclear submarine to deal with a DE submarine, it has to use active sonar and make high speed interceptor slash & run attacks. If it lingers, it'll be vulnerable to the sniping DE submarine. It also needs the high speed to outrun torpedoes. Even though it'll be noisy at high speeds, the DE submarine wont be able to catch up or keep up with it.

Which is why IN was not euphoric when IN Type 877EKM tracked a US Nuclear Submarine in restricted area in recent Malabar exercises. Had the area not been restricted, the nuclear submarine could've used active sonar over long range and attacked and ran. The DE submarine would not have the speed or endurance under those circumstances.

It is similar to air combat between supersonic and subsonic fighters. In 1965, a Pakistani Starfighter attempted to dogfight with an Indian Mystere and the Starfighter went down. Because the supersonic fighter was less maneuverable than the subsonic fighter. Similarly, in 1971, an IAF MiG-21 attempted to dogfight with a Pakistani Sabre and the MiG-21 was shot down. The supersonic fighter in both cases should have made high speed interception passes instead of attempting to dogfight.
....

[ramana]

An SSBN armed with nuclear missile, if attacked, could result in nuclear explosion.

Not true.

Please don't spread fear and confusion.

[Aditya G]

...
still SSKs because the missiles are in hunter killer role. They have no land attack or ground support mission. .....

As per the book Foxtrot to Arihant our Kilos are equipped with LACMs.

There are numerous references online if you google it.

[ShauryaT]

And just for comparison power reactors for aircraft carriers as function of displacement?

Two Akula class reactors to power IAC 2 was the demand of Adm. Arun Prakash and the same demand to power the SSN has been heard. The power generated should be enough for EMALS and a 65K carrier. Each should be able to provide about 35 MWe power.

[srai]

Fascinating stuff as usual sarkar. I hadn't quite imagine SSN* will fare off against a conventional diesel one.

How do SSK*s actually operate? I am thinking a task force of Vikramaditya, Mysore and Talwar are moving at 20 knots ... 250 clicks off Gwadar, how will Agosta even approach this formation?

*

...

Submarines are designed for ambush. If the fleet passes within proximity without detecting the SSK, then it will be able to shoot (or "snipe" in tsarkar lingo ). Submarines don't go chasing after ships; they lay silently around (sometimes in packs as in WW-II) on likely shipping routes.

Or if they do need to chase, then they are better chasing in-kind playing hide-and-seek with each other at very low speeds.

One has to admire the patience of submariners that too working in a claustrophobic environment.

[Singha]

>> Submarines don't go chasing after ships

but submarines do need to move huge distances to get into position on expected convoy and fleet routes. the u-boat packs either relied on FW condors flying out of norway to locate the zig zagging radio silent convoys to murmansk, gather together for the attack and usually attacked at night in a bunch. same for the north atlantic since routes near the british isles were predictable.

[Avarachan]

I'm going to re-post one of tsarkar's posts from 2014. I think it will answer a lot of the questions that people have.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1593512

Firstly, we need to stop using designations like SSGN, SSBN or SSN, that are US designations, for Indian submarines. FWIW, Indian submarines use "S" unlike US "SS" in penant numbers.

It is prohibitively expensive to operate ballistic missile submarines operations for 30 years lifetime of a submarine for a once in a blue moon possibility of nuclear war. The French & UK Royal navies are operationally bleeding because of their 24x7 deterrence patrols.

So Indians wisely came up with a concept of 3 smaller diameter tubes within a larger diameter tube. There would be indications of nuclear threshold being escalated, rather than a sudden launch, and the submarine is sufficiently flexible to be re-configured to carry larger diameter missile in a short time.

Uncle is converting SSBN for conventional missiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine, though their designs are not flexible enough to accommodate quick change between larger diameter strategic & smaller diameter tactical missiles, like SDREs.

Also, submarines with 16/18/24 strategic missiles are unwieldy & less manoeuverable than smaller submarines. It puts all your eggs in the same basket. Once a ballistic missile is launched, the underwater noise can be hear by other submarines/ships, and the SSBM is surely to be targeted.

Again, SDRE put only four strategic missiles per Arihant, distributing eggs among multiple baskets, and ensuring their submarine are not large & unmanoeuverable. Plus 12 tactical missiles give similar punch like a Kolkata class destroyer with 16 Brahmos.

@Merlin, you're right, not at the same time. A strategic missile armed submarine wont expose itself by launching tactical missiles

@Philip - compare Brahmos length & diameter with K-15/Shourya, the cannister will fit. Sub launched Brahmos was developed in time for Arihant.

[ShauryaT]

Or if they do need to chase, then they are better chasing in-kind playing hide-and-seek with each other at very low speeds.

If the silent speed of the enemy sub is 20 knots and yours is 12, will you not be at a significant disadvantage in this silent game of hide and seek? The upcoming type 095 is estimated to have such capabilities.

[uddu]

The role change concept and it's application need to be done with care. At no point of time, there must be a situation when the four of the subs which will be inducted is armed for conventional strike. That will dilute the nuclear retaliatory capability based at sea which we are building. The role change can be such a way that initially all will be SSBN. Later on as we add more larger, faster, modern (at that time) ballistic missile subs which will become the deterrent force, then initial ones can take the role of either ballistic missile or conventional strike capability based on the requirement. Its good that we construct it for dual role with the option to change it when replacement subs are build. Hopefully India may need another 6 or so larger SSBN's in the next 15 years other than the ones being build.

[shiv]

If the silent speed of the enemy sub is 20 knots and yours is 12, will you not be at a significant disadvantage in this silent game of hide and seek? The upcoming type 095 is estimated to have such capabilities.

Shaurya I am not sure what you mean by silent speed. No matter how silent a sub is it will make some noise if it moves and the noise gets louder if it moves faster. If it moves it can be tracked. The tracker may not be able to catch up but he can track. The only way for a sub to be really stealthy is to stop moving and to minimize all noise inside the sub.

[shiv]

]
An SSBN armed with nuclear missile, if attacked, could result in nuclear explosion.

How will the fuse get lit underwater?

[shiv]

Submarines are designed for ambush. If the fleet passes within proximity without detecting the SSK, then it will be able to shoot (or "snipe" in tsarkar lingo ). Submarines don't go chasing after ships; they lay silently around (sometimes in packs as in WW-II) on likely shipping routes.

Or if they do need to chase, then they are better chasing in-kind playing hide-and-seek with each other at very low speeds.

One has to admire the patience of submariners that too working in a claustrophobic environment.

+1

May I suggest this as essential reading. Gives more info about Indian sub ops than anything else
http://www.amazon.in/Foxtrots-Indian-Na ... 8193005570

[Shreeman]

]
An SSBN armed with nuclear missile, if attacked, could result in nuclear explosion.

How will the fuse get lit underwater?

Dont be silly, nuclear fire fuses are lit with heavy water. Deep down water is heavy. This is why everything gets crushed. If there is a spark from the attack that could spread to nucular bum and then heavy water is already present then a xhain reaction nucular reactor event can happen. In japan, fukushima reactor even exploded, from heavy water of the tsunami. All submarines are playing with fire, fire, i tell you.

[shiv]

I have no idea why you say none of our subs will sail with nuclear warheads?

Shaurya this is my belief. People are free to think otherwise

I get the impression from a lot of discussions that people are coloured by the "ready to fight nuclear war any minute" posture that the US has maintained for decades and there is a tendency for people to think that this is the only way to be prepared for nuclear war. Anything less is a sham.

Well then we have a sham - if that's the word. I seriously doubt if Indian land based deterrents are going to sit around in unmated condition while the sea based ones are mated and ready to fire.

If this is called a weak and risky posture, then there you have it, I believe we have a weak and risky posture. India has no policy of maintaining ready to use warheads anywhere - not even on subs. Just my view.

[shiv]

Dont be silly, nuclear fire fuses are lit with heavy water. Deep down water is heavy. This is why everything gets crushed. If there is a spark from the attack that could spread to nucular bum and then heavy water is already present then a xhain reaction nucular reactor event can happen. In japan, fukushima reactor even exploded, from heavy water of the tsunami. All submarines are playing with fire, fire, i tell you.

You really need to do your research properly before you embarrass yourself. Have you tried to light anything underwater, heavy, medium or light?

Even Fukushima was in the air. Air is needed for burning, esp components like nitrogen - ever heard of nitrates in explosives, and carbon dioxide. I pity you if you don't know in this day and age the association of carbon dioxide and burning. So there.

[srai]

>> Submarines don't go chasing after ships

but submarines do need to move huge distances to get into position on expected convoy and fleet routes. the u-boat packs either relied on FW condors flying out of norway to locate the zig zagging radio silent convoys to murmansk, gather together for the attack and usually attacked at night in a bunch. same for the north atlantic since routes near the british isles were predictable.

Yes. What I meant was submarines don't go "tail" chasing ships They need to be in position before ships pass by. And they will do that in the manner you have described.

[Singha]

agreed. U-boats packs were sent out on rotations into the expected areas. convoys were always coming and going so targets were always available without a need to chase around.

nevertheless some of the convoys were gated by the speed of the slowest members which was like 10-15 knots max. any ship with engine failure or damaged and sinking was left behind to manage on their own and the convoys maintained speed to escape any more attacks. so people in the water had scant chance of survival in those polar waters. fast corvettes and destroyers acted as screens and would chase U-boats with depth charges.

germans also tried to attack with bombers constantly and with ships based in norway. this led to some major battles between the escorting ships and interceptors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Barents_Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_North_Cape

love or hate them, the RN train and fight well.

only time the british RN backed away was when the tirpitz was said to have put to sea looking for a fight. the whole convoy was asked to return, because the tirpitz after sinking all escorts would have flattened the convoy in a hour or two.

[Shreeman]

Dont be silly, nuclear fire fuses are lit with heavy water. Deep down water is heavy. This is why everything gets crushed. If there is a spark from the attack that could spread to nucular bum and then heavy water is already present then a xhain reaction nucular reactor event can happen. In japan, fukushima reactor even exploded, from heavy water of the tsunami. All submarines are playing with fire, fire, i tell you.

You really need to do your research properly before you embarrass yourself. Have you tried to light anything underwater, heavy, medium or light?

Even Fukushima was in the air. Air is needed for burning, esp components like nitrogen - ever heard of nitrates in explosives, and carbon dioxide. I pity you if you don't know in this day and age the association of carbon dioxide and burning. So there.

i dont know all this mumbo jumbo as I am no scientist. As I mainly operate on faith and belief in the almighty I do know you can light up a bum just fine underwater, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-SKYwOc0Fk

35 feet, 100 feet. whats the difference? water only gets heavier as you go lower down. I have tested this by going down to the bottom of a swimming pool with a taraju. You leave one side of the scale on shore, and take the other with you to the bottom. The one with you is much heavier as it is the one you are struggling with at the bottom of the pool. Fukushima would never fly. It was enclosed in concrete (very heavy) and buried in heavy water of the tsunami. This weight was too much for the reaCtor to handle and so it eggsploded. It was ukrainian nucular reactor that was on the land. But that is russian design, they make rugged bums which will eggsplode even without water.

[Aditya G]

It is widely held belief that pak navy will maintain a cordon sanitaire around it's key shore facilities, while the agostas venture out to hunt for Indian navy ships in lone wolf attacks.

How do they hope to trap any ship in this scenario? Bangor in '71 basically lined itself up outside vizag harbour ... And we know how that went for them.

On the west khukri and kirpan were looking for the submarine when khukri was detected first and killed.

Will pak navy be satisfied by sniping and easier to get merchant shipping? It seems asw should be easier in out scenario as we have to sanitize only a particular area and not the open ocean.

[Akshay Kapoor]

Shreemanji,

heavy water is not heavy because of the 'pressure of being deep' but because it has twice the amount of hydrogen isotope deuterium. It is man made not naturally occurring. Sirji thoda to socho before posting.

[Akshay Kapoor]

I have no idea why you say none of our subs will sail with nuclear warheads?

Shaurya this is my belief. People are free to think otherwise

I get the impression from a lot of discussions that people are coloured by the "ready to fight nuclear war any minute" posture that the US has maintained for decades and there is a tendency for people to think that this is the only way to be prepared for nuclear war. Anything less is a sham.

Well then we have a sham - if that's the word. I seriously doubt if Indian land based deterrents are going to sit around in unmated condition while the sea based ones are mated and ready to fire.

If this is called a weak and risky posture, then there you have it, I believe we have a weak and risky posture. India has no policy of maintaining ready to use warheads anywhere - not even on subs. Just my view.

Shiv you are completely correct. Nuclear warheads are not held by the armed forces but by the AEC. I had confirmation of this in 2013 and I don't believe things have changed since. One of the biggest concerns that the armed forces have is that we have no doctrine or mechanism in place to keep fully functional warheads + delivery systems with the armed forces and then a foolproof mechanism to give launch orders from competent authority (PM ?). And no back ups if PM and political leadership is incapacitated. All of these needs to be thought through and mechanisms set, training done if we are to have a robust second strike capability.

[shiv]

Shreemanji,

heavy water is not heavy because of the 'pressure of being deep' but because it has twice the amount of hydrogen isotope deuterium. It is man made not naturally occurring. Sirji thoda to socho before posting.

Akshay that was a little humour interlude between me and him - so pls ignore. I was about to "educate" him and tell him that there is Heavy water with Tritium, Medium water with Deuterium and Light water with Helium which everyone knows is light - so best to ignore those posts.