Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 06 Mar 2016 16:58

Arihant has 4 tubes. Aridhaman onwards will have 8 tubes. Follow-on class will have 12-16 tubes. Thats what is being reported.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Mar 2016 17:08

Russis seems masters of the bull snort thing upto ICBM level. Very bullish about it.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 06 Mar 2016 17:22

prasannasimha wrote:The ring pull launch system has been used for two purposes one as a tractor but more importantly to create a gas bubble through which the missile is pushed through water. There is a video on YouTube of a similar testing of one of the Russian ICBM's being launched in a similar manner

What is the advantage of having such a setup. Subsequent Russian SLBM does not seem to be using it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Mar 2016 21:14

K4 delivers 16 x 450 kg WMD. If theoretical yield is 6kt per kilo. take off 20% for being practical i.e. 4.8kt and based on shakti performance, if we derate it to 2.4kt/kg we can arrive at 1.08 megatons per rv.

enjoy karo!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 06 Mar 2016 21:15

Gyan wrote:k14 = 12 missiles = 12 nukes and and follow on Arihant class SSBNs to have 8x4=32 nukes (Range 2000-3000km)
k4 = 4x4=16 and follow on Arihant class SSBNs to have 8x4=32 nukes(Range 3000-5000km)
k5= 4x6 = 24 nukes or 6x6=36 nukes (Range 5000-8000km) till we go for next class of SSBNs

Range also matters even with the limited threat scenario emanating from PRC. For a guaranteed delivery from both sides of the Indian peninsula, we need in excess of 10,000km. Trivandrum to Harbin alone is close to that range. So from Agatti one is looking at an even larger number for the range required. So a true full range ICBM is justified for India even at this point.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Mar 2016 21:49

The ring pull system takes up precious weight and space in tube. If bottom gas generator is powerful enough you can delete.maybe it permits launches from deeper depths as a pro

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 06 Mar 2016 22:30

The gas generator at the topallows a more efficient cold launch from deeper depths. Russians abandoned it for other reasons. Their M version had problems with the solid rocket booster itself

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 06:47

prasannasimha wrote:The gas generator at the topallows a more efficient cold launch from deeper depths. Russians abandoned it for other reasons. Their M version had problems with the solid rocket booster itself

Don't know the physics but what you say sounds right. The ring pull as pointed out by someone above creates a gas bubble near the front end of the missile so the body rises though a gas bubble and does not have to push its way through dense water with water acting as drag ever millimeter of the way and ring pull may be better for deep launches

The image linked below shows water sticking to the entire surface of the missile as it lifts out.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2mG_1EtuGDQ/T ... 3%2529.jpg

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 08:47

Shiv is right that missiles are not mated to their warheads all the time.

Infact, missiles are not even carried. All the TFTA VLS that you see are mostly empty.

The reason is technical rather than policy.

Most members see missiles as uber TFTA, however, do not realize that despite quantum improvement in electronics and chemicals, they have very finite shelf life and carriage life, that developers and manufacturers do not publicize.

Someone got hold of the maintenance details of R-77. Here are the hard facts of life.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-3.jpg

Missile life in storage is 8 years in unprepared condition, 5 years in prepared condition in OEM packaging and 1 year unpackaged on the ground.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... R-77-5.jpg

More facts. Missile flight life is 50 hours in the air. With missile electronics powered up, missile life is 3 hours.

So unless its live training exercises, most aircraft carry inert missiles or ACMI pods.

For naval or ground based missiles, the figures are higher.

While the individual hours of each missile type & make may be different, the operational hours to storage life ratio is mostly the same. Most missiles spend their lives in Armament Depots in OEM packaging with only routine testing done.

There is a proper cadre for doing this http://nausena-bharti.nic.in/officer1.php

Naval Armament Inspection Officer
These specialist officers inspect the armaments supplied to the Navy by various agencies. While they ensure the quality, safety and reliability of naval armament and stores, they are also responsible for in-house research & development leading to indigenisation. Both Permanent as well as Short Service Commissioned officers serve in this cadre.

Only US & USSR maintained high rate of deployment with expired missiles requiring costly dismantling and that was one of the reasons USSR went bankrupt and US saved by the skin of its teeth.

So ships of all navies are never fully kitted out unless its full fledged war.

And war typically comes with some degree of warning. Even during Pearl Harbour, the US Navy Aircraft Carriers were out reinforcing Wake Island with aircraft.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 07 Mar 2016 09:31

^We are talking of nuclear warheads here where the core is mated. This is not equivalent to conventional missiles.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 09:47

prasannasimha wrote:^We are talking of nuclear warheads here where the core is mated. This is not equivalent to conventional missiles.

No prasannasimha. It is. The conventional explosive of the warhead has a shelf life anyway and is continuously exposed to neutons from spontaneous fission of the fissile material. That apart - all the nuclear material degrades continuously - Tritium, if any in the core of a boosted fission device degrades pretty fast. Plutonium 239 itself has this problem of absorbing a neutron to become Pu-240 which can lead to fizzles. Lithium deuteride requires very special storage conditions and will degrade with time. One the the problems of stopping testing of nukes for all states is stockpile stewardship - they can no longer tests warheads under storage to see if they work as expected.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 07 Mar 2016 10:06

That remains true even if the warheads are stored at BARC. There is no purpose in havinga nuclear submarine force keeping demated warheads. They will probably keep enough warheads for a credible second strike.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 10:36

@Prasanna

Lets take a step back to the middle ages to knights in shining armour. Did they wear their armour and carry their swords and shields all the time? No. Their squares & pages dressed them before the battle. Otherwise despite his physique, Mr Knight would collapse under the weight.

Which is why I am objecting to using

1. Uninformed Media Reporting
2. US or other published material that do not reveal full operational details

to discuss either submarine operations or Indian strategy & operations.

Its grossly incorrect & misleading.

Deterrence does not mean sitting with finger on the trigger all the time to blast each other like Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Remote sensing satellites will give sufficient warning of Chinese or Pakistani preparations.

INAS 310 Do228 will pick up electronic chatter. Did anyone notice that squadron focusses on Information Warfare?

Everyone is so obsessed with bums that they do not even bother to find out what IW is, and its significance, or why IN & GoI is investing money in it. Bums are glamorous, IW is mundane.

Also check out the COMINT capabilities on our EMB-145. Ever wonder why those planes have COMINT?

Sorry to disappoint, but you'll never have 6 submarines x 16 VLS x 4 MIRVs = 384 warheads with fingers on trigger waiting to obliterate China & Pakistan in second strike. Nor do China or Pakistan have or will.

As srai put it perfectly

srai wrote:That's more than the entire nuclear arsenal held by India

The capability will remain in Naval Armament Depots like INS Vajrakosh. It will be deployed iff required.

This is the type of battering ships take http://i.imgur.com/uq9jXFZ.jpg

So rather than exhaust missile lives in the battering, its better to carry a few normally, and carry a full load only in crisis situations.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2016 10:55

while aircraft are always close to armament depots, it is problematic to recall a sub on training cruise in middle of IOR back to base to load up and then go out again to patrol areas - a 2 week turnaround. events may take their own pace.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 11:05

prasannasimha wrote:That remains true even if the warheads are stored at BARC. There is no purpose in havinga nuclear submarine force keeping demated warheads. They will probably keep enough warheads for a credible second strike.

There are 2 questions here
1. Is it true for BARC?
2. What is the point?

I can only talk about the first question. No. It is not true for BARC where fissile material will be kept separate from the rest of the warhead. First, the conventional explosive is not exposed to continuous irradiation. Secondly Plutonium cores can be re fashioned from time to time with fresh Pu stocks wihout removing a missile from a sub and dismantling the warhead. Third, any Tritium used can be oven fresh.

We have been discussing the issue "What is the point?" for many years in the strat forum in a thread entitled "Deterrence"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 11:07

Singha wrote:while aircraft are always close to armament depots, it is problematic to recall a sub on training cruise in middle of IOR back to base to load up and then go out again to patrol areas - a 2 week turnaround. events may take their own pace.

These are all old questions that have come up time and again on the topic of " What is deterrence?"

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Mar 2016 11:09

You need to have at least one (or two) SSBN constantly deployed on deterrent patrol with its nuclear arsenal. That's one more sure-way to guarantee a viable second-strike option. Others stored in various land bases will not be as survivable when the enemy launches a preemptive first strike targeting all-known storage sites.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 11:12

The entire world has been exposed only to one model of deterrence, and that is the American cold war model of being ready to fire a nuke within 5 minutes warning. That is not the model followed by India. If this fact is disappointing or causes the anger of indignant cognitive dissonance, I invite folks to air their views in the Deterrence thread of the strat forum

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Mar 2016 11:18

The Indian model is at an infancy really. The warheads, missiles and launch vehicles are just coming about now. There is still a ways to go for survivable second-strike/deterrence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 11:20

srai wrote:You need to have at least one (or two) SSBN constantly deployed on deterrent patrol with its nuclear arsenal. That's one more sure-way to guarantee a viable second-strike option. Others stored in various land bases will not be as survivable when the enemy launches a preemptive first strike targeting all-known storage sites.

I would be happy to debate this commonly stated rule of thumb, and will post my thoughts in the strat forum in due course.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 15:33

Singha wrote:it is problematic to recall a sub on training cruise in middle of IOR back to base to load up and then go out again to patrol areas - a 2 week turnaround. events may take their own pace.

Good Question.

This is addressed by doctrine & training.

Even before things go wrong, for example, if COMINT or Remote Sensing Satellite detect something amiss and trigger an alert, then the decision makers can order proactive mating of warheads to missiles and load them on to ships.

To further refine the above, different conditions can be defined that would trigger specific responses

The Americans use this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON

So even in the US context, their missiles too are not ready to launch at 5 minutes notice.

We too will have such defined conditions

Now on mobilization,

In a class of 3 ships, one ship will always be on patrol, one in transit to/from patrol, and one in harbor for R&R. If things go wrong, the ship in harbor will be armed first, followed by ship in transit, followed by the ship on patrol.

Lastly, just like every Army battalion has a quick reaction Ghatak platoon, every Command and Fleet has ships dedicated for quick response.

So, we wont be caught unprepared.

Some missiles will be kept in advanced state of readiness. Thereafter they're fired off for practice, often with the conventional explosives needed to trigger the nuclear bomb and whose effectiveness would be monitored via instrumentation.

For example, occasional firings of SFC Prithvi & Agni missiles might be missiles on readiness, that are fired for practice as they reach end of life.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 16:46

tsarkar wrote:
In a class of 3 ships, one ship will always be on patrol, one in transit to/from patrol, and one in harbor for R&R. If things go wrong, the ship in harbor will be armed first, followed by ship in transit, followed by the ship on patrol.

Exactly what I thought
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1986748

shiv wrote:given our nuclear doctrine it is certain that none of our subs will be sailing with ready to use nuclear warheads.
<snip>
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.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 18:23

Your reasoning is absolutely right. There are practical reasons why ships are built in multiples of 3.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 18:54

ShauryaT wrote:Is ELF the sole communication protocol or is VLF also used due to limitations of bandwidth on ELF?

No. Rukmini is there too for high volume data. Just a mast or a buoy with an antenna would be raised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communica ... submarines

Where available, dedicated military communications satellite systems are preferred for long distance communications, as HF may betray the location of the submarine. The US Navy's system is called Submarine Satellite Information Exchange Sub-System (SSIXS), a component of the Navy Ultra High Frequency Satellite Communications System (UHF SATCOM).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSAT-7

GSAT-7, the multi-band communication satellite named Rukmini satellite carries the payloads in UHF, C-band and Ku band...The multiple-band spacecraft will be used exclusively by the Navy to shore up secure, real-time communications among its warships, submarines, aircraft and land systems...During Theater-level Readiness and Operational Exercise (Tropex) in the Bay of Bengal in 2014, Rukmini was able to network about 60 ships and 75 aircraft seamlessly.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 07 Mar 2016 18:58

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all 300 odd warheads will be on hair trigger alert. OTOH, it seems incredible as suggested that those on patrol will be without missiles and their warheads. The next step or concomitant step to a first strike will be to take out the opponents SSBNs. SSBNS coming back to the pen or leaving the pen for mated missiles will paint a big target. I am no naval expert but I hope they have a SOP much smarter than that.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 07 Mar 2016 19:00

Noobie question: what if the first strike takes out the ports and the docks?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 19:33

LokeshC wrote:Noobie question: what if the first strike takes out the ports and the docks?

Noobie counter question - the threat of enemy attack is there when one is in the loo or sleeping. Does one take sword and armour to bed and loo?

No, one posts sentries at the gate & walls and wear the armour & swords when sentries give warning.

Which is why there is investment in Remote Sensing Satellites, COMINT, SIGINT, etc.

Supratik wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting that all 300 odd warheads will be on hair trigger alert. OTOH, it seems incredible as suggested that those on patrol will be without missiles and their warheads. The next step or concomitant step to a first strike will be to take out the opponents SSBNs. SSBNS coming back to the pen or leaving the pen for mated missiles will paint a big target.

See, its not that one day Chinese leadership will wake up and decide to nuke India to bits. If that mentality was there, it would've happened 20 years ago. Plus they've to consider that even if one Indian nuke survives, even that one bomb can ravage a city.

Situations escalate over time, lets say from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1 (Sigh, now I have to use borrowed terminology) and that gives time to prepare.

Also, mating and loading can be done in a jiffy. All loading needs is a jetty and a crane. It can be done in Tuticorin or Paradip or Haldia or Vizhinjam too

http://www.vizhinjamport.in/

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... g_gear.jpg

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 07 Mar 2016 19:39

As supratik said no one says every warhead will be activated but there will have to be at least one sub with mated warheads to enable credible second strike. Remember that the goal of a first strike is to do a decapitation strike of retaliatory capability. Yes there will be variable levels of preparedness bit I doubt zero weapons will be kept ready when a nuclear sub is on deterrant patrol

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 07 Mar 2016 19:47

If missiles are never going to be mated in peacetime, why is that guy walking behind the PM with a suitcase aĺl the time? You cant fool the public all the time!. If there going to be sufficient warning and time for launch, I would say such an elaborate set up with multiple safety keys is not required

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 07 Mar 2016 19:49

tsarkar wrote:
LokeshC wrote:Noobie question: what if the first strike takes out the ports and the docks?
Noobie counter question - the threat of enemy attack is there when one is in the loo or sleeping. Does one take sword and armour to bed and loo?

No, one posts sentries at the gate & walls and wear the armour & swords when sentries give warning.

Which is why there is investment in Remote Sensing Satellites, COMINT, SIGINT, etc.

Ahh I see. So we need to make sure we have fool proof intelligence on the possibilities of a first strike event (aka levels) and also would need to be sure there is sufficient time from a "possibility of first strike" detection by an intelligence source to the actual first strike event.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Mar 2016 19:51

essentially, that means no hot-ready sub is out there in the deep.. meaning, our doctrine is not for a split second second-strike. the credibility of babooze deciding to push the button itself would be a second strike constraint. it is not just technology alone.

there can be at least few in the packs that are hot-ready, for the intended shelf-life. shelf-life at BARC is fine, as and when the WMD is finished to delivery, is when I would consider begin of shelf-life. the build time to load time should be reduced. all depends on the design.

..and what would the first-striker be doing? simply wait for the second strike to happen from desh? BS!

he will go binda$$ on the first itself knowing fully our NFU. our design should speak higher for the deterrence now rather make them think on the vulnerabilities we have created for the first. iow, let them not even dream about first strike should be our config.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 07 Mar 2016 20:07

LokeshC wrote:So we need to make sure we have fool proof intelligence

That is an incorrect statement. Raising DEFCON levels DOES NOT require foolproof intelligence. Just raised public tensions are sufficient to raise DEFCON levels. Read up the link I posted on DEFCON on occasions when DEFCON levels were raised.

DEFCON 2
Cuban Missile Crisis
Gulf War

DEFCON 3
Yom Kippur War
Operation Paul Bunyan
September 11 attacks

Even 9/11 resulted in DEFCON 3 alert. And raising the DEFCON levels never required fool proof intelligence. For example, in the opening hours of 9/11, no one knew who was the perpetrator.

LokeshC wrote:on the possibilities of a first strike event (aka levels)

Again, that is a partly accurate statement. Even just the possibility of a first strike event is DEFCON 1. DEFCON 2-4 are much earlier thresholds than first strike events.

One will mate & load warheads at DEFCON 3. By the time DEFCON 2 or 1 is reached, the loaded submarines will be already at sea.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 20:44

LokeshC wrote:Noobie question: what if the first strike takes out the ports and the docks?

I didn't address this specifically - but a variant of this when I made this post earlier today. How many targets have to be hit before all of India's deterrent is rendered useless? Please see:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1989783

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 20:52

prasannasimha wrote: Remember that the goal of a first strike is to do a decapitation strike of retaliatory capability. Yes there will be variable levels of preparedness bit I doubt zero weapons will be kept ready when a nuclear sub is on deterrant patrol

Please do visit and read the post I made today - in the appropriate thread:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1989783

That said, I don't claim to have any extra knowledge of India's nuclear preparedness, but I am asking that people stop thinking for a minute that "There must be some warheads mated all the time". Of course that not only sounds logical, but it is reassuring to us to think of it that way. But what if the truth is that no warheads are mated and ready at any given time in peacetime? The reason I demand that people think about this is that this may be the truth. What do people feel if they learned that the truth is less reassuring to them than the comfy thoughts they are having that there must be some warheads ready?

Please post thoughts/rants in the deterrence thread for continuity.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 07 Mar 2016 21:09

Well in that case there will be no deterrent patrol just practice patrol. The boats are going to be roaming close to base or parked and upon hint of tension they will load and move out. Forget about lurking under the southern IOR. Not an altogether impossible scenario given the severe dhoti-shivering of the Indian establishment at even something like crossing the LOC in Kargil. So I will not rule it out completely.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2016 21:10

Usual suspects rolling out usual fig leaves to cover lack.of political will and investment.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2016 21:23

Singha wrote:Usual suspects rolling out usual fig leaves to cover lack.of political will and investment.

The statement is not clear. "Usual suspects"? "Rolling out fig leaves"?

Problem is that too many people like to have comfortable thoughts
a. We have big bum
b. Big bum is ready to be phyrred

What if these are only masturbatory thoughts meant to cause pleasure and comfort? Reality is that warheads are not mated and ready to be used.

The idea that "usual suspects are rolling out fig leaves" is also only a comforting thought that says "Actually there is something wrong. Things can't be that un prepared. I am sure the usual suspects are bullshitting. We must be more ready than that"

What if we are not? I believe we are not. Why is everyone intent on imagining things when every "expert" commenting on nuclear affairs be it Karnad, Chellaney, Arun Prakash or Tellis have openly stated that India's posture is not to keep warheads mated with delivery systems. I think people are in denial and seem to imagine that India is doing a minor version of American deterrence posture. We are not.

Maybe these people are bluffing, or they don't know or they are rolling out fig leaves, but why are they saying that?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 07 Mar 2016 21:36

Shiv,

What you say doesn't sound logically correct. The very idea of having a nuclear submarine force is to have a strike capability even if we have to bear a surprise first strike..in such a scenario, if you say "the reality is that submarines sail with their tubes empty", then that submarine force doesn't become part of the nuclear triad. So, it is not wet dreams or masturbation if someone says they expect the submarines sail with ready to fire missiles. If that is not trues, then having such a submarine force is a waste. Cost, technogy or any other bla bla cannot and should not be the reason. Simply put, if it is not the case, then we simply do not have the so called nuclear triad complete.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Mar 2016 22:02

actually speaking, if we are somewhere 200nm in bay of bengal, we should hit shangai with a 4k ranged mijjle. a first strike fallout has an assumption that our naval facilities to get these second strikers are in-tact. the secret recipe is where we house them? is it andamans or taiwan should not be the point. but, the capability exists to load for bear in couple of hours is what matters.

dealing all mijjles in mid-course in space is an ideal SDRE deterrent though. [ABM]

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Mar 2016 22:24

geeth wrote:If missiles are never going to be mated in peacetime, why is that guy walking behind the PM with a suitcase aĺl the time?

The suitcase is folding armour plates to protect VIP lol