Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 20:28

Viv S wrote:
Cybaru wrote:I doubt anyone will give us naval nuke reactors, what we might get is the sub minus reactor.. we may have to BYOR (bring your own reactor) to the party. I think we wants em new propulsion either from French or russkies for SSN. We could equally like the scorpene product and want an upscaled version.
Bingo. The French will provide design consultancy for the SSN project similar to how the Russians provided it for the SSBN project. The reactor development however will be a domestic responsibility.

Thank you CY and Viv_S for highlighting that point

JTull: I think the above scenario is possible. I agree with your views, minus the reactor.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Dec 2017 20:32

If anyone has seen any report/official statement that the French and India have agreed on cooperation for any aspect of SSN, please post. Until then- any "cooperation" will remain a rumour. Such rumours take a life of their own and in 1 month it will have become truth.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 20:50

ShauryaT wrote:BARC needs to evolve from 40% HEU to 80%+.

Can you please advise on evolution process of HEU reactors? Newbie question - having a HEU reactor violates some kind of treaty? The CTBT?

Since we have to refuel the Arihant (is at 40%?), I like the French concept - IF TRUE - that they can refuel the boat via special hatches (process takes couple of weeks) versus cutting open the sub (process takes couple of years).

We will obviously not be able to do that on the Arihant, Aridhaman or S3...but on the future SSNs and SSBNs, it would be a very good feature to have. Assuming that process can work with HEU reactors as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Dec 2017 20:52

Rakesh 80% HEU reactors last longer and may not have to be refuelled at all for the entire life of the Submarine. Forget the Frogistanis "hatches" etc. US submarines are like that onlee

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Dec 2017 20:53

shiv wrote:If anyone has seen any report/official statement that the French and India have agreed on cooperation for any aspect of SSN, please post. Until then- any "cooperation" will remain a rumour. Such rumours take a life of their own and in 1 month it will have become truth.

Well Said!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 20:53

Hakeem: What is the HEU reactor % on the Arihant? 40%? Is that a classified number? I believe it will have to get a refuelling, right?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 21:00

This is a post by BRF Member, Vips....

-----------------------------------------------------------

India launches project to make six nuclear submarines: Navy chief.

Faced with a belligerent China, India has launched its project to build six more nuclear-powered submarines. The nuclear power will allow them greater endurance under sea as the submarines need not surface to ‘breathe’.

Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba, while replying to a question, said on Friday, “We have launched the project to make six SSNs (nuclear-powered submarines) and I will not say any further as it’s a classified project.”

Addressing a press conference ahead of the Navy Day (December 4), Admiral Lanba, on being asked about the threat from Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean under the garb of anti-piracy patrols, said, “For a sub it’s an odd task to be on anti-piracy patrol. We have carried out threat assessment of PLA (People's Liberation Army) submarines.” PLA subs are coming for two deployments every year. This pattern is on since 2013.

In yet another hint at how India is challenging China, the Admiral said, “We are deployed 24x7 in key areas in the Gulf of Aden to straits of Malacca besides the straits of Sunda and Lumbok .” These are the ingress and egress routes to the Indian Ocean.

Speaking on induction of new assets as per Navy perspective plan, he said 34 ships are under construction. Work on indigenous aircraft carrier is going on and hopefully it would join the navy in 2020-end.

He said, “We have identified Rs 40,000 crore worth of projects for Indian private shipyards. We have made significant progress at Karwar (south of Goa). The next phase of project Seabird at Karwarhas has commenced that will accommodate more number of ships submarines.”

Commenting on the recent navy-to-navy agreement with Singapore, the Admiral said, “Why do you link every bilateral to China.”

“We are looking at other countries for logistics agreement like Singapore and have started taking fuel at sea from the US three months ago at the Gulf of Aden,” he said.

Speaking about the controversy in the Russian media that a US team boarded the INS Chakra, the nuclear-powered submarine, he said, “No American has even seen it from close quarters.”

The submarine is on lease from Russia.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Dec 2017 21:02

shiv wrote:Rakesh 80% HEU reactors last longer and may not have to be refuelled at all for the entire life of the Submarine. Forget the Frogistanis "hatches" etc. US submarines are like that onlee

Shiv ji, practically does it make any difference that nuke sub has to be refueled? From what I've gathered I've hardly heard any sub more than 3 months in deployment. So it has to make port atleast to restock food supplies at the least. During which time, the sub can be refueled. PS, I am not sure how long it takes to do that BTW.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 21:18

Karthik S: Cutting open a sub, refuelling and then welding back together takes a couple of years. Our reactor design - our first attempt, so understandable - is not as advanced as the S9G reactor (aboard the Virginia Class SSN) which reportedly does not require refuelling for more than 30 years, which is arguably the life of the boat.

Also, based on Hakeem and Shaurya's posts....switching to LEU reactor (when we have a functional and proven HEU reactor) makes no sense. I would rather have India focus on improving the HEU reactor to have a longer time between refuelling and eventually a reactor design that needs no refuelling for the life of the boat. I believe that is what Shaurya is saying by going from 40% HEU to 80% HEU. However till that time, we need to explore options in reducing the time it takes to refuel the reactor. That is why it would be good to know if a HEU reactor can be refuelled in the same way as a LEU reactor. Hopefully Shaurya, Hakeem or someone else can bring that to light.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 01 Dec 2017 21:20

Thanks Admiral.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Dec 2017 21:28

The refueling of a boat is a long drawn process that can take 2 years or more. So if the boat reactor can last 30 years without refueling it will not go out of service for 6 years of it's service life.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2017 21:31

Thanks Pratyush....six long years that you can needle the dragon with

We need a permanent underwater patrol in the Malacca Straits, South China Sea and the Philippine Sea. Monitor all Chinese naval movements in the area. Our boats should be there 24/7. And the Chinese should be aware that we are there, without knowing the boat's exact location. For that - apart from food & supplies - we need boats that require little or no refuelling during its lifetime. If HEU reactor is the way to go to achieve this, then HEU it is. Six SSNs is a good number to start off with, but more will be needed.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 01 Dec 2017 22:29

Rakesh wrote:Karthik S: Cutting open a sub, refuelling and then welding back together takes a couple of years. Our reactor design - our first attempt, so understandable - is not as advanced as the S9G reactor (aboard the Virginia Class SSN) which reportedly does not require refuelling for more than 30 years, which is arguably the life of the boat.

Also, based on Hakeem and Shaurya's posts....switching to LEU reactor (when we have a functional and proven HEU reactor) makes no sense. I would rather have India focus on improving the HEU reactor to have a longer time between refuelling and eventually a reactor design that needs no refuelling for the life of the boat. I believe that is what Shaurya is saying by going from 40% HEU to 80% HEU. However till that time, we need to explore options in reducing the time it takes to refuel the reactor. That is why it would be good to know if a HEU reactor can be refuelled in the same way as a LEU reactor. Hopefully Shaurya, Hakeem or someone else can bring that to light.

Isn't the bigger issue that it takes away precious bomb grade fuel that (given the sanctions and exclusions that India has had to face), we don't have massive stockpiles of? The US/Russia do not have this problem.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Dec 2017 22:35

If the supply of uranium is assured. It makes no difference if reactor is HEU. It will have no effect on bomb program.

Even if supply of uranium is constrained then level of enrichment for reactor will have no effect on the bomb program.

The most important issue is supply of uranium.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 01 Dec 2017 22:41

Pratyush wrote:If the supply of uranium is assured. It makes no difference if reactor is HEU. It will have no effect on bomb program.

Even if supply of uranium is constrained then level of enrichment for reactor will have no effect on the bomb program.

The most important issue is supply of uranium.

Thanks for clarifying. Are we allowed to use fuel under IAEA safeguards for naval reactors or does that have to come from our 'unsafeguarded' program?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Dec 2017 23:46

Work Begins On Construction Of Six Nuclear Powered Submarines For The Indian Navy

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Dec 2017 23:46

Bart S wrote:
Pratyush wrote:If the supply of uranium is assured. It makes no difference if reactor is HEU. It will have no effect on bomb program.

Even if supply of uranium is constrained then level of enrichment for reactor will have no effect on the bomb program.

The most important issue is supply of uranium.
Thanks for clarifying. Are we allowed to use fuel under IAEA safeguards for naval reactors or does that have to come from our 'unsafeguarded' program?

Domestic uranium reserves have improved to such an extent that if mining is done carefully . Then the rational for importing fuel disappears.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Dec 2017 23:52

Bart S wrote:

Isn't the bigger issue that it takes away precious bomb grade fuel that (given the sanctions and exclusions that India has had to face), we don't have massive stockpiles of? The US/Russia do not have this problem.

Our nuclear weapons are Plutonium based. Not Uranium. Plutonium extracted by reprocessing spent fuel from our PHWRs which themselves run on natural uranium, not HEU.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Dec 2017 23:57

I've tried to use Google chacha to find what the advantages of a naval reactor using LEU are as opposed to a traditional reactor using HEU. I've found only 2 -
1. Lower enrichment needed. So easier and cheaper to produce the fuel.
2. This is what seems to tomtommed everywhere - lower proliferation risk since it is easier to convert HEU to weapons grade (or use it directly).

Point 2 has zero importance to us but hugely important to countries like France. Developing and perfecting a completely new reactor design just for point 1 seems unnecessary. If anyone knows any other advantages, please enlighten me.

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 02 Dec 2017 00:43

nachiket wrote:I've tried to use Google chacha to find what the advantages of a naval reactor using LEU are as opposed to a traditional reactor using HEU. I've found only 2 -
1. Lower enrichment needed. So easier and cheaper to produce the fuel.
2. This is what seems to tomtommed everywhere - lower proliferation risk since it is easier to convert HEU to weapons grade (or use it directly).

Point 2 has zero importance to us but hugely important to countries like France. Developing and perfecting a completely new reactor design just for point 1 seems unnecessary. If anyone knows any other advantages, please enlighten me.

Quicker to refuel, in few weeks instead of few years as is the case with HEU

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Dec 2017 02:11

Rakesh wrote:Hakeem: What is the HEU reactor % on the Arihant? 40%? Is that a classified number? I believe it will have to get a refuelling, right?

It is from my memory, do not remember now where I read it. Another number for recall is 10yrs for Arihant to be refueled, which would equate to about 40%. The latest US Sub/AC reactors do 93% HEU.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2017 03:00

@ShauryaT: Thanks. Can you tell me how you came up to that calculation? Also can a HEU reactor be refuelled in the same manner as a LEU reactor? How do you increase enrichment from 40% to 80%? Would the latter number translate to 30+ years of usage?

I asked google chacha and I came across the following;

(Land Based, Nuclear Power Plant)
https://www.xceed-eng.com/nuclear-reactor-refueling/

(Nuclear Powered Submarines)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ships.aspx

India's Arihant (6000 dwt) has an 85 MWe PWR using 40% enriched uranium driving one or two 35 MW steam turbines. It has 13 fuel assemblies each with 348 fuel rods, and was built indigenously. The reactor went critical in August 2013. A 20 MW prototype unit had operated for several years from 2003.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Dec 2017 04:21

Using LEU for submarine seems stupid to me. Is K15 really LEU? U need enormous amount of LEU mass to achieve criticality which would make them too bulky for Subs. Why would French do it ? I can’t find much on this K15 creature so not sure.

Also LEU process generates much more potent Plutonium for making bigeer brtter bombs. Actually HEU is cheap low tech way to make bombs ehile LEU is much more sophisticated process producing much more potent nuclear bomb material. Most rogue nations like Pakistan and Iran work on HEU while India is one of the masters of LEU technology.

I do not think that USA would agree to any treaty that makes them junk all their subs and knowledge of ultra HEU reactors they have developed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2017 06:57

Ex-squeeze me folks. This HEU/LEU debate for naval nuke reactors sounds like a debate about whether it is better to get raped from front or back. I say that it is better not to get raped at all.

Wiki aunty is phree for all, and she says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Some marine reactors run on relatively low-enriched uranium which requires more frequent refueling. Others run on highly enriched uranium, varying from 20% 235U, to the over 96% 235U found in U.S. submarines,[2] in which the resulting smaller core is quieter in operation (a big advantage to a submarine).[3] Using more-highly enriched fuel also increases the reactor's power density and extends the usable life of the nuclear fuel load, but is more expensive and a greater risk to nuclear proliferation than less-highly enriched fuel.[4]

For Indians it is a no brainer
1. We have already developed a HEU naval reactor and have the skills to develop that
2. None of us even knows how many other apps that HEU may be needed for by us (India) and we must not give up HEU simply because the b'chod west is demanding that it should be given up for the purpose of their 4 letter treaties.

Why is the bchod west demanding that HEU should be given up? Because it is easiest to make bombs with HEU and all sorts of nations are now getting there.

Does the west not suffer if they too give it up? Not at all. Not at all. The US has several decades worth of HEU available for itself. France will not say how much it has stockpiled. Besides - the west and China gave themselves plenty of time to perfect their non Uranium based weapons. The west made CTBT to put a finger in India's backside and then they gave a one time exemption to China and France in 1996 to perfect their weapons. With gandu nations like China in the club no one is going to give a lump of snot's worth of concern about Indian needs.

Don't even start talking about the lead time to change over technology for naval reactors from HEU to LEU and this "help from France" would make me laugh if it was not making me cry in agony at the utter stupidity of the idea. The minute we sniff something that is offered from "advanced nation" we seem to go gaga over the idea and fall head over heels for it. NO!!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Dec 2017 07:01

^^^Fake news?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2017 07:05

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Fake news?

Not even news. Just an opinion article by Yusufdfi

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Dec 2017 07:17

Rakesh wrote:@ShauryaT: Thanks. Can you tell me how you came up to that calculation? Also can a HEU reactor be refuelled in the same manner as a LEU reactor? How do you increase enrichment from 40% to 80%? Would the latter number translate to 30+ years of usage?

Rakesh: That calculation is mostly a derivation of the Akula early generation reactors, which has a refueling cycle of about 10 yrs @ 40% enrichment levels. HEU reactors have to be refuled by getting to the core, a multi month process, I believe the sub is dissected for the purpose. On enrichment, you can read up the various diffusion processes using centrifuges, laser, gas techniques. I think 80% gets you to between 20-25 years and 93% to about 30 years. For India, we probably will design the sub to last us about 40 years, so the plan will be to refuel it once, with 80% enrichment.

On this LEU/HEU debate, read this paper. The debate is largely driven by non-proliferation groups. US/Russia have led the HEU process as they never had any real need to separate safeguarded/unsafeguarded fuel cycles. France probably invested in LEU so they could export, to NNWS and address proliferation concerns.

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/Replacing ... 1458832580

added: India is heavily invested in the HEU fuel cycle.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 02 Dec 2017 09:41

Guru's basic question, pardon my ignorance in this thread :

1) Lets say we leave LEU vs. HEU debate aside, what is it that makes frenchie's refuel their barracuda quicker as I heard /read is that refuel for HEU takes months because the sub needs to be cut open and then sealed back ? I also read that franchise have a hatch in their SSN that enables them easy access to refuel and complete the process in weeks.

2) Second question follow up to one is, why can't the same be done to HEU boats ? or why not massa or ruskies don't have that feature. (Apart from it takes time to collect enriched maal).

My guess to second question is that may be their one cycle if 20-25 years for a sub so they do not care if there is a major refit involved. The crux of that question is because we would need it every ten years(Speculation based on info available open source) we can definitely enable that or why haven't we done that.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Dec 2017 10:50

20% is considered HEU which is good enough for abomb. 96% is massa grade HEU, beyond the reach of most mortals. The stupid DDM said 5-7% LEU is used in K15 reactors for subs which needs to be corroborated. This low level of enrichment is what Is used for commercial power generation on land where real state or foot print is not an Issue.

HEU is easier technology which could allow rogue organization to make a low yield bomb or atleast a dirty bomb. The LEU-plutonium route requires a much more sophisticated technology and infrastructure which is beyond the reach of rogue nations and organizations. This gets translated as LEU low proliferation and HEU higher potential of proliferation. If Barracudas do use 5-7% LEU there must be a reason for it, not sure what it is.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Dec 2017 10:58

One reason could be cost, it is exponentially more expensive as you move up on enrichment percentage. Also France gets 75% of it’s electricity from nuclear plants it may have France specific reasons to stay at lower end of HEU.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Dec 2017 12:21

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Dec 2017 12:25

Context please for the picture.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2017 12:56

Katare wrote:20% is considered HEU which is good enough for abomb. 96% is massa grade HEU, beyond the reach of most mortals.

Not really. It is simply bomb grade. The same process used for enrichment if done for longer you will get 96%

At 20% is is very difficult to create a Uranium bomb. It will require to be imploded and that will make a hu-uge bulky bomb. 90+ % is what is needed for the easiest bombs and even Pakistan has done it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2017 12:58

krishna_krishna wrote:Guru's basic question, pardon my ignorance in this thread :

1) Lets say we leave LEU vs. HEU debate aside, what is it that makes frenchie's refuel their barracuda quicker as I heard /read is that refuel for HEU takes months because the sub needs to be cut open and then sealed back ? I also read that franchise have a hatch in their SSN that enables them easy access to refuel and complete the process in weeks.

2) Second question follow up to one is, why can't the same be done to HEU boats ? or why not massa or ruskies don't have that feature. (Apart from it takes time to collect enriched maal).

My guess to second question is that may be their one cycle if 20-25 years for a sub so they do not care if there is a major refit involved. The crux of that question is because we would need it every ten years(Speculation based on info available open source) we can definitely enable that or why haven't we done that.

Sudden surges of power required for high speed are better with HEU reactors. Also longer life and longer time between refuelling

About the Frogistanis read this
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016 ... ulsion.pdf

I will only quote one part

Conclusions for Naval Reactors' Lifetime and Performance
It appears from the above analysis that choosing LEU or HEU for the nuclear core does not influence
the immediate performance of the submarine. However, using LEU diminishes the maximum lifetime
permitted by the core and will most likely require the use of a greater number of cores during the opera-
tional life of the submarine.

The operational life depends principally on the weapon combat system and usually will be comprised
between 25 and 35 years but it may go up to 40 years. If the submarine is a “low” consumer of energy —
which is the case for SSBNs — one or two cores even with low enrichment fuel will be sufficient for the
lifetime; on the contrary, if the submarine is a higher consumer, such as SSNs, a greater number of cores
will likely be necessary.

Importantly, for the French Navy, as unloading is required at every major overhaul and several times
without compromising the diving performances, the choice between LEU and HEU does not rely on
operational considerations but only on economic considerations as examined next.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2017 13:03

Katare wrote:One reason could be cost, it is exponentially more expensive as you move up on enrichment percentage. Also France gets 75% of it’s electricity from nuclear plants it may have France specific reasons to stay at lower end of HEU.

This is correct.

From the pdf linked above

Moreover, it may be reminded that France has made the choice of a closed fuel cycle for its electricity
generating reactors. This means that the used fuel elements are reprocessed in a plant (located in La
Hague), which separates uranium still present in the fuel, plutonium produced, and fission products.
Uranium and plutonium (which are both non weapon grade) are reused in fresh elements whereas
fission products are conditioned (in a glass matrix using a process known as vitrification) for long-term
storage. The reprocessing plant can in broad outline be divided into three parts: the “entrance head”
where the fuel elements are truncated into pieces, the chemical part where the chemical separation
takes place, and the conditioning workshops where the various products are prepared for their final
destination.
As the naval cores use the same basic technology (pellets of uranium dioxide) as the civilian plants and
as the enrichment of the fuel is within the limits authorized for the La Hague plant, naval cores could
— when the decision would be taken — be reprocessed along with the civilian cores, provided that the
“entrance head” is adapted to their specific structure. Hence, the French Navy will not need to develop
any specific solution for the management of its nuclear waste.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 02 Dec 2017 13:04

Pratyush wrote:Context please for the picture.

That's the INS Chakra I suppose. Docking post sonar damage?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 02 Dec 2017 18:28

so we have Arihant line of 6 new clear detergent missile and now 6 new clear attack submarine? The attack by definition should be small and fast.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 02 Dec 2017 18:39

shiv wrote:I will only quote one part
Conclusions for Naval Reactors' Lifetime and Performance
It appears from the above analysis that choosing LEU or HEU for the nuclear core does not influence
the immediate performance of the submarine. However, using LEU diminishes the maximum lifetime
permitted by the core and will most likely require the use of a greater number of cores during the opera-
tional life of the submarine.

The operational life depends principally on the weapon combat system and usually will be comprised
between 25 and 35 years but it may go up to 40 years. If the submarine is a “low” consumer of energy —
which is the case for SSBNs — one or two cores even with low enrichment fuel will be sufficient for the
lifetime; on the contrary, if the submarine is a higher consumer, such as SSNs, a greater number of cores
will likely be necessary.

Importantly, for the French Navy, as unloading is required at every major overhaul and several times
without compromising the diving performances, the choice between LEU and HEU does not rely on
operational considerations but only on economic considerations as examined next.

Shiv Garu, thanks for the link. My question is more on changing cores : What makes french be able to change the core quickly vs. long months for HEU ?

Can the same arrangement be done on HEU to quickly change the cores rather than cutting open the boat and waiting for months ?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 02 Dec 2017 18:55

Gurus, one political pooch, if we have both SSNs and SSBNs patrolling hind, prashant mahasagars, can we make a strong case to enter permanent security council? Our recent show with ICJ would make us more confident. Also, UK and France are in P5 predominantly on the basis of their boomers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Dec 2017 19:51

there is no such "rule"

just because a newly minted billionaire brown man buys a home in chelsea or atherton will he get invited to the dinner parties and golf clubs of the old boys? I doubt it.

either he has to bring down and discredit the old order and get to the top of the dung hill or setup his own parallel power structure by getting more likeminded non old boys under his umbrella.

what exactly do we have to fear by not being a member of the P5? that someone will pass a motion to declare war or sanctions on us and rest will abstain or say aye?

cover every member of the P5 with 30 survivable land based ICBMs and let peace flower.

we have nothing to fear except fear itself.