Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2017 06:38

Frankly the information about Indian nuke subs is such a closely guarded secret that I would be surprised if such information is leaked out, or if leaked - may simply be deliberately misleading.

In fact this "non stretched" 3rd sub information does not correlate with this Sandeep Unnithan video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cki_rpUJKI

So which is correct?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2017 07:32

my theory is a hedge against the russians playing games on the akula front. a faster smaller A class can still do the SSN escort role better. infact they might fill the K15 tubes with brahmos

until our first SSN arrives a decade from now, we are 1 Akula, 1 more hopeful Akula and nothing else, while Cheen Shang class SSNs number a half dozen already, with surely a Shang2 class being built at frantic pace.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 14 Dec 2017 08:06

Shorter for Arihant substitute during detterent patrol while stretched one is being built. Once stretched one is fully commissioned it will be blue print for next 3-6 subs

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Dec 2017 08:52

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/939588536726052865 --> The only thing that can really make the Indian Ocean, 'India's Ocean' is a 10-12 unit strong fleet of contemporary nuclear attack submarines i.e SSNs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2017 13:23

+ space based and OTH RF sensors + ELF and laser comms facility to talk to submerged hunters and SSBNs + I believe a ASBM to increase the threat matrix for surface forces + new brahmos2 hypersonic should be air launched from day1.

we have already built a ELF facility in south TN. ofcourse its true status is shrouded in secrecy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2017 14:04

SU is with IT where Raj C is the chief editor.Raj C was the one who gave us the first info about our strat. deterrent with his book,"Weapons of Peace".
RC has excellent access at the highest level and would be able to get accurate info without anything really classified being revealed.I feel that the IT piece was a way of informing the Indian public about the steady progress of our N-deterrent and sub programme,through IT,instead of a usual press handout from the MOD or PMO which would beggar a demand for more info.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Dec 2017 09:17

Gurus, newbie ques, a submarine's displacement is higher when submerged than at surface. Is it because of the added weight as the ballast tanks get filled with water when submerged or are there additional forced adding to high displacement when the submarine goes under water.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Dec 2017 09:36

its the ballast water.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Dec 2017 09:40

Thanks Singha ji.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Dec 2017 09:40

Karthik S wrote:Gurus, newbie ques, a submarine's displacement is higher when submerged than at surface. Is it because of the added weight as the ballast tanks get filled with water when submerged or are there additional forced adding to high displacement when the submarine goes under water.

It is ballast water - but a sub at neutral buoyancy can be made to dive deeper or rise like an aircraft simply by using hydroplanes. Typically - if the displacement is less than the mass of sub - it will keep on sinking - so I think ballast filling is pretty much stopped when the sub reaches neutral buoyancy underwater

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 15 Dec 2017 10:56

Thanks Shiv ji.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Dec 2017 11:49

Here's a good primer.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/trans ... arine1.htm
How Submarines Work
BY MARSHALL BRAIN & CRAIG FREUDENRICH, PH.D.

Will · Post by **Will** » 16 Dec 2017 20:57

kit wrote:
Will wrote:
An SSN with an 83Mw reactor is just not going to cut it. It needs a more powerful reactor.
why ?

Cause hunter killers need the speed and acceleration . They are the jet fighters of the submarine world unlike the boomers which are the bombers and can afford to prowl at slower speeds.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Dec 2017 21:14

^Some more reasons.

Agility - The ability to dive and move quickly and have access to enough surge power that even LEU reactors cannot generate - this capability is essential in contested waters.
Silent Speed - The speed at which a nuclear sub is considered relatively sound proof to remain undetected by enemy sonar at a certain range. If an SSN does 30+ knots of sustained speeds when doing a dash, it can "safely" cruise at about 20 knots or so and remain relatively silent. This will beat the top speeds of most diesel subs
Tonnage/Cost: Higher MWt output can pull a higher tonnage that in turn can carry more torpedoes and missiles and at decent speeds, and not needing as many subs for the given tonnage and missiles.
Relatively lower MWe:MWt ratios - Our reactor design is a derivation of a Russian 2nd generation design, not known for its high MWe output. We need to build higher MWt to produce acceptable electric power to power a true SSN.
Surface combatants/CBG Speed: Most of our surface ships can do 30+ knots. In a fleet protection role, although some jugaad techniques are there to exploit, jugaad remains jugaad and cannot replace capability without some sort of compromise.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Dec 2017 22:06

We Indians have a tendency to bend over backwards to point out why out stuff is inferior even in the absence of any public information of the inferiority of that entity. We are actually intelligent enough to mine the internet for foreign examples to show that foreign is superior. So the insistence that 83 MW is just not enough for so many things has now taken a life of its own. We are adding more and more and more data points of what is not good without any real data about speed, actual power generated etc.

Why not quit second guessing our pepole, Just 3 weeks ago all of us had our knickers in a tight knot like we were holding back pee in an overnight bus journey after 10 beers when bad reports came about the Tejas. But now its back to business . No data about Arihant. So make up faults and inadequacies and explain to newbies and others from made up fact extrapolated from elsewhere How clever are we? Too clever by half if you ask me.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Dec 2017 22:14

shiv wrote:We Indians have a tendency to bend over backwards to point out why out stuff is inferior even in the absence of any public information of the inferiority of that entity. We are actually intelligent enough to mine the internet for foreign examples to show that foreign is superior. So the insistence that 83 MW is just not enough for so many things has now taken a life of its own. We are adding more and more and more data points of what is not good without any real data about speed, actual power generated etc.

Why not quit second guessing our pepole, Just 3 weeks ago all of us had our knickers in a tight knot like we were holding back pee in an overnight bus journey after 10 beers when bad reports came about the Tejas. But now its back to business . No data about Arihant. So make up faults and inadequacies and explain to newbies and others from made up fact extrapolated from elsewhere How clever are we? Too clever by half if you ask me.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Dec 2017 08:18

>> true SSN

no doubt with moving goalposts set by the goras who currently have a surfeit of powerful reactors. if they suddenly decide to halve the reactor size & top speed and pack in more VL tubes in favour of ELO noise signature, suddenly the defn of true SSN will also change

one can never win a card game where all the others have a agreement and rigged it.

its better to discredit such existing cozy systems of mental overlordship and invent our own goalposts....for instance Bartania's mightly ultra modern Astute class sub or French's "longfin" Barracuda neither have the ability to launch hypersonic ballistic missiles of the K15/K4 mould - #pathetic and #weak, reduced to attacking hapless merchant ships

neither do they pack a supersonic ASM like brahmos which can no doubt be put in the K15 tubes #fail Bartania does not even really "own" her *imported* Trident SLBMs as US naval staff in faslane,scotland are in control of their programming. UK cannot even test launch one against the bald Eagles wishes #epic fail. as for the Russis they managed to lose a premier SSGN in 100m of water with no local DSRV to rescue despite decades of experience and building some 300 n-subs #poor the tfta teutonic U209 was lost recently with all hands in argentine service and the greek U214 "cutting edge" ones have faced numerous "issues"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Dec 2017 09:54

Plus Spanish Scorpene variants having a faulty design where they could sink!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Dec 2017 10:06

Look, I think that our designers and consultants designed and built what was reqd. reactorwise for the first Arihant class SSGN/ SSBN subs.The limited no of missiles for the first two boats ( if Arigat is a sister ship and not larger with 8 silos) and the last SU report, indicate that a design for an SSN/ SSGN was some time ago modified to carry a few N-tipped BMs and the subs meant for the SC and not for regular IN ops.

If the larger subs arrive with a far greater dpl. ,one can be sure that more powerful reactors will come with these
boats.Shiv is quite right in saying that without hard evidence we're badmouthing the sub and efforts of the desi design team based upon mere speculation .One report said that either two reactors of the exg. type or a new single reactor would be present in the 12/16 silo true SSBN fitted with 8000+km ICBMs.From other sources, all Agni series BMs will be canisterised, Akash too, and the A-6 will have a range of at least 8K, maybe 12K.Let's watch developments unfold.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Dec 2017 22:38

Will wrote:
kit wrote:
why ?
Cause hunter killers need the speed and acceleration . They are the jet fighters of the submarine world unlike the boomers which are the bombers and can afford to prowl at slower speeds.

i dont think a submarine can outrun a torpedo or missile coming its way ., especially the modern homing torpedos with dual passive/active sensors. NO. The usp of a submarine is stealth., especially for boomers , the surge power is especially important for hunter killer subs. expect those to have high density fuel cells + low power reactors. High power reactors of newer generation might cut it but if you dont have access to that tech i would go with low power reactors with high capacity cells to provide the surge power ( trade off would be the weight penalty) .

I would expect the new generation indian nuke hunter killers to progressively improve on tech .. an mki version of the best of east and west . They will make the indian ocean truly Indias ocean and keep clear of any lizards.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Dec 2017 08:35

Sandeep Unnithan article itself had some contradictions - it first said the A class were originally designed as SSNs, but now that a dedicated class of SSNs have been sanctioned we are scratching our heads on how to make an SSN reactor?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Dec 2017 11:00

Faster the Submarine, closer the the launcher has to come to launch its Torpedos. A Submarine if far enough can get out of range of a Torpedo.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Dec 2017 11:25

The latest wake-homers have a few hrs. endurance and keep searching and searching until they score a hit. The Russian ones now have a 100km range with speeds twice that of a conv. sub .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2017 12:01

Aditya_V wrote:Faster the Submarine, closer the the launcher has to come to launch its Torpedos. A Submarine if far enough can get out of range of a Torpedo.

same rules apply as in a/c vs AAM. the AAM on paper a mach4 hunter can easily outturn the a/c also (upto 45G for the small ones) vs 9g for manned platforms. but a/c can and do escape by means of (a) distance too far for the AAM to sustain chase as a/c turns tail and speeds up (b) countermeasures

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2017 12:04

Philip wrote:The latest wake-homers have a few hrs. endurance and keep searching and searching until they score a hit. The Russian ones now have a 100km range with speeds twice that of a conv. sub .

the conventional wake homers were not designed to loiter around much but maybe engage again or do a spiral or programmed pattern search to reacquire ... their engines and batteries were not designed for a long loiter UUV-cum-torpedo mission.

maybe new ones now inbound have such features.

there is also a existing weapon called "Captor mine" which releases a light torpedo from the sea bottom where it is moored

a DDG or CV will shrug off a LWT hit but can be deadly vs another submarine. not sure of its IFF features, the last thing anyone wants is one of their own subs taken out by this loose cannon. all LRMP birds launch LWT only as HWT is too big.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Dec 2017 12:20

And LWT range is really small right something like 3-5Km right.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Dec 2017 12:57

F-21,The French Navy’s
new heavyweight torpedo
Using state-of-the-art technology, the F21 features exceptional
performances, fulfi lling all the stringent French Navy requirements:
advanced self-guided mode, shallow and confi ned water capability,
latest generation of countermeasures resistance and compliance with
nuclear submarines safety norms.
Thanks to its intelligence, range and fi re power, it off ers navies an
unrivalled tactical advantage by increasing the spectrum of
operational scenarios.
The F21 will equip the entire French SSBNs and SSNs fl eet,
as well as the Brazilian Scorpène® SSKs.
The F21 is also launchable from surface ships.

https://www.naval-group.com/wp-content/ ... orpedo.pdf

PS:Kalvari is reported to be equipped with "old
torpedoes from other subs,most probably German ones from our U-boats.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Dec 2017 16:43

maz wrote:I am trying to get my head around to why the powers that be chose to build some boats to the 'shorter' variant and some to the longer - and I daresay more desirable - variant. Maybe more answers will emerge in due course.

Due to evolving technology and evolving strategic considerations.

Sandeep is right - In the 80's, original plan was to build an attack submarine - something to take on USS Enterprise type Battle Group if they threatened India. For ocean engagements, one requires a nuclear submarines. DE submarines lack range, endurance, depth & speed.

In the 90's Pokhran happened and 4 tubes were added. Intent was modest sea based deterrence like Agni 2. Also, a multi role submarine was envisaged. The US took this concept forward with Ohio SSGN conversion and Virginia Payload Modules.

In 2000's, PC rightly questioned 4 tubes for the massive investment. Again plans were changed for 8 tubes. But those under build continued as usual. Its not simple - just adding a plug. The entire design undergoes re-design.

In 201X, we need deterrence against China, so submarines with larger number of tubes are sanctioned.

abhik wrote:Sandeep Unnithan article itself had some contradictions - it first said the A class were originally designed as SSNs, but now that a dedicated class of SSNs have been sanctioned we are scratching our heads on how to make an SSN reactor?

The new generation reactors for attack submarines need to be ultra quiet with longer intervals between refuelling. Much more evolved from the earlier generation reactor. You dont use a 90's design powerplant for a submarine being built in 2020's after 30 years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2017 21:30

here is the condition of germany's uber tfta not-for-export U212 fleet. easy to overlooks others problems while bashing our own people.

https://www.rt.com/news/413483-germany- ... f-service/

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 18 Dec 2017 22:03

tsarkar: Are you of the view that Aridhaman+ will have a new power plant? If you want to share any details you know, what output, HEU, time frame for completion etc. Yes, all with the caveat that we all know nothing, as nothing is "official".

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Dec 2017 09:14

The capabilities we need in our SSN has if I may say has a single defined purpose, it is to thwart PLAN SSN from having a free run in the IOR, defend our SSBN force and secondarily to act in a fleet protection role in the indo-pacific. An SSN using its speed advantage can use active sonar techniques more effectively and has a higher chance to dive fast and dive deep to avoid incoming torpedoes.

Now one can argue that in the IOR our ASW platforms will thwart PLAN SSN's from the use of active sonar, thereby negating at least some of its advantages of speed. One can even argue that building a SOSUS type system can do a better job of thwarting PLAN SSN's from having a run in the IOR or collaboration with the US on PLAN subs in the IOR. I am sure there are many such mitigating techniques available and these techniques are not the point.

The intent here is not to put cold water on what we have done so far, but to demand accountabilities from a program that has been struggling since 1974! Yes, that is when our SSN program was initiated. There is admittedly some consternation given that it took over four decades to commission our first nuclear sub and it was widely expected the 2nd one would be a bigger one with 8 silos, this product as not ready is not encouraging news if the news about its impending launch were ever true. Somewhere along the line a decision seems to have been made that doing this 8 silo version with a slightly uprated reactor design (or new reactor?) as was the original reported plan has run into issues or all the earlier reports were wrong, including the one by Sandeep Unnithan with Shiv Aroor just a few weeks back!!

Had any of you heard of the Arighat or a plan to do a 2nd Arihant? I mean over the past 3 months there were multiple reports of Aridhaman being launched, 8 siloed version, more powerful reactor and what not. Unless, this was always the plan and I have at least one chai wallah report saying it was, why all the buildup that Aridhaman was to be launched only for another Arihant launched instead?

What does make sense to me is there was always a plan to do a 2nd Arihant. S2 was only 60% indigenous. Arighat is 80% indigenous. One more identical build was needed to hone our skills and up the indigenous content, before newer versions and designs can be taken up. Makes sense but was not reported earlier.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Dec 2017 13:24

X-posted from the IN td.
Good vclip fature of French UW tech/products at Naval Group's St.Tropez facility.See the latest F-21 torpedo,Scorpene tunes,LW MU-90 torpedo,etc. Some of these products will definitely end up in Indian Scorpene subs,etc.Good explanation of the F-21 HW and MU-90 LW torpedoes.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ility.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Dec 2017 14:08

How we embarked upon a nuclear-sub navy.The "F" mag and former CNS Adm.Vishnu Bhagwat gives us a peek inside events that took place decades ago and the efforts of some inimical western powers,esp. the US pretending to be "strat. partners"to derail our possession of N-subs,even with the Chakra-2.

http://forceindia.net/guest-column/beginning-new-era/
XCpts:
Beginning of a New Era
The story behind India’s first nuclear submarine INS Chakra
Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat (retd)Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat (retd)

The major policy decision implicit in the directive of October 1968 signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi addressed to the defence minister and the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) was to prepare an action plan and progress steps to achieve advanced strategic frontiers.

This was followed by discussions in 1974 between the Chief of Naval Staff Admiral S.N. Kohli and Admiral of the Fleet S.G. Gorshkov on the broad contours of the navy’s role in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond. Coincidentally, the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) programme was formally initiated by the Prime Minister a few months later. Readers would recall that the United States’ aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had made a threatening move in the Bay of Bengal during Bangladesh operations in December 1971.

The quest began with internal discussions at the highest political level. The Prime Minister advised by her principal team of advisors including G. Parthasarthi considered a single page, hand-written, position paper submitted by me, then a young commander in the Indian Navy. It was accepted in principle by the government and was only actively revived in 1980 after the return of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister, when offers were made at the level of the Soviet defence minister, Marshal D.F. Ustinov and Admiral S.G. Gorshkov to set up a nuclear submarine fleet for India and lease one nuclear submarine to train the Indian crew.

This gathered pace despite some ‘refrains’ of, ‘We must learn to walk before we can run. The Soviet offer would neither strengthen the navy’s submarine arm nor add muscle to India’s maritime forces from the then CNS Admiral R.L. Pereira and few others in the navy, some elements in the ministry of defence (MoD), and alarms raised by external powers, using covert channels.

However, a determined Indira Gandhi, then also the defence minister, approved the go-ahead to sign an inter-governmental agreement (IGA), simultaneously approved by President Leonid Brezhnev. The commissioning crew to be trained left for Vladivostok in 1983 to commence their two and half years training. Due to the change of leadership in the Soviet Union there was an overall change in the geo-political situation. Soviet leader and general secretary of the Communist Party, Mikhail Gorbachev, met the US President Ronald Reagan at the Reykjavik in 1986.

The finalisation of the terms and signing of the lease took place in July 1987 after the decision was taken by Ambassador T.N. Kaul and chief of naval staff Admiral R.H. Tahiliani in Moscow. The Chakra (I) crew returned to the Soviet Union in August 1987 for delivery acceptance trials. The US dispatched a note of protest to the Soviet ministry of foreign affairs which resulted in the suspension of the transfer process in October 1987. On Ambassador T.N. Kaul’s advice, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid an unprecedented one-day working visit to Moscow. The go-ahead was finally given in mid-December 1987 for the completion of the transfer process and hoisting of the Indian colours on Chakra (I) on 5 January 1988.

Similar high drama repeated itself in mid-1998 with the initiation of the lease for Chakra (II) till signing of the contract along with the Gorshkov aircraft carrier on 20 January 2004. These demonstrate the international attention and attempt to de-rail the ‘N’ submarines programme. Of course, one has to not only anticipate but always be well-prepared for this as far as strategic projects are concerned.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Dec 2017 00:29

Was the 80s offer about TOT or lease/sale?
" It was accepted in principle by the government and was only actively revived in 1980 after the return of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister, when offers were made at the level of the Soviet defence minister, Marshal D.F. Ustinov and Admiral S.G. Gorshkov to set up a nuclear submarine fleet for India "
The agreement between IG and SU was signed in 80, the Arihant was launched 29 years later in 2009. Therefore TOT was not planned right from the beginning?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Dec 2017 08:28

India’s Arighat Prototype Limited by Reactor Power & Missile Maturity

India’s 6,000 tonne INS Arighat prototype SSBN launch on November 19, 2017 is less of a surprise when one considers GhalibKabir’s adviceon December 12, 2017 that INS Arihantand another 6,000 tonne nuclear sub (now known as Arighat) were under construction since 2006. Their reactor specifications were apparently frozen at 83MW, meaning they could not be built much larger than 6,000 tonnes - if a cruising speed around 20kt was maintained. India, of course, sees its future SSBNs as the most secure second strike weapon platforms.

Perhaps the need for a continual high level of SSBN budgetary funding prompted Indian SSBN builders to disseminate larger SSBN Aridhaman propaganda for years. Propaganda could also be seen as public relations. As early as July 14, 2014 Aridhamanwas to be “launched into water soon”. Submarine Matters as early as August 24, 2014 doubted the ambition of India's SSBN and SSN programs.

So the non-appearance of a much larger INS Aridhaman SSBN may be due to India’s current inability to produce a reactor much more powerful than 83MW. Another limitation seems to be the immaturity of any 7,000km range SLBM (called K-5 or K-6). So India is not indulging in a rush program to produce a 13,000 tonne SSBN large enough to mount K-6s.

India’s SSBN Program at its most basic seems to have several requirements including sufficient reactor power, SSBN size to accommodate large enough SLBMs to carry a sufficient payload over a sufficient range. More specifically:

A. Develop, test and fine tune 2 x 6,000 tonne prototypes (INS Arihant and INS Agrihat) and

then

B. launch 2 small 7,000 tonne SSBN by 2022 which will have 8 x (very limited 3,500km range K-4s) 1.3m diameter, 10m long. India, of course, claims to, or does, pursue a No First Use nuclear policy. But if China fired first the medium range K-4 can, once it is ready, reach only a limited number of significant targets within China. These include:

Suspected Chinese IRBM hardened silos and TEL hiding places
The PLA’s Western and Southern Theatre Command HQs and troop concentrations
See Southwest China map for provincial capitals with comparatively large southwest Chinese populations, including:
- Tibet provincial capital Llasa with population about 1 million
- Yunnan provincial capital Kunming with about 7 million people and
- Sichuan provincial capital Chengdu with about 15 million
- Guangxi provincial capital Nanning 7 million
- Guizhou provincial capital Guiyang with about 5 million

For a 7,000 tonne SSBN it is preferable to use a slightly uprated 90 MW reactor. This is possible, assuming 6,000 tonne Arihant of 83MW reactor is a development of the Russian 70MW - 90MW VM-4 reactor. Hydronamic improvements can be made to the sail/fin and pump jet propulsor or a slower cruising speed may be acceptable

and/or

C. skip the 7,000 tonne SSBNs and go straight to 13,500 tonne SSBNs powered by an Indian-Russian development of Russia’s well used Russia 190 MWt OK-650 reactor. A 13,500 tonne SSBN needs the capability to launch, from Bay of Bengal bastion waters, a true 7,000km intercontinental SLBM with warheads in range of Beijing. Specifically 12 x K-6 SLBMs, 12m long, 2m diameter.

SLOW INDIAN SSBN PROGRAM?
India may not need to develop SSBNs at a cracking US vs Soviet Union Cold War pace because India's main SSBN opponent, China, is not developing SSBNs quickly. This is as far as overt sources can know. Also one must remember China launched the first of its nuclear submarines (Type 091s) in 1970. Balanced spending, that satisfies Indian civilian expectations, is essential in that democracy.

Yes, but with half a dozen Jin's, each with 12 silos, MIRV'd and the planned type 096 with 24 silos with JL-3's are enough to warrant a credible Indian response and in a hurry!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2017 12:18

I think that the components for two Arihant class SSGNs were planned for initially and available.We're often told that there are sev. subs lined up and in the pipeline.Adding an extra missile plug should not have been a problem, but just 8 silos and a missile/ICBM yet to be perfected may have brought about some rethinking.

The road/rail mobile AGNI series appears to be adequate for now to deter China.The actual range of the various missiles in the series may be more than stated why a half step to building an 8 silo SSBN is less attractive than a 12 or even 16 silo true SSBN.Until the missile is developed it may be premature to build the sub.Remember Russia's long testing phase for its Bulava ICBM.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 21 Dec 2017 07:04

The whole program is a black hole and secret with selective titbits. Aridhaman was very much in the dry dock when the dock axxidenr happened. The selective announcement of Arighat is a selective warning.The SLBM launch was also a similar thing to say we are ready if need be. We essentially now will have at least one sub under detterent patrol is the probable signal that was being sent when Arighat was announced. Remember the statement was about clearing both pens for constructing new subs. There are two and Arihant was already out so to clear two pens there had to be two additional subs. We know one is Arighat and the other was ?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Dec 2017 07:20

Arindham?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2017 09:46

i have a basic question - why do we need SLBMs to deter Cheen? would not a fleet of 100 road mobile A5 and follow ons be enough , backed by a good IRBM inventory? russia for instance puts great store by its land based fleet incl mobile, train and even the fixed SS18/Sarmat. these will be far cheaper as we pay for the missile and a truck, not a huge submarine to cart the missiles around. I could drive that TELAR, read the instruction manual and fire that thing off with a week of training

a pure play hunter killer SSN, even with 12 hypersonic ASMs need not be bigger than Arihant/688 size around 6500t. we could build 6 SSNs for the cost of 3 SSBNs. we could put the fear of god into any cheen incursions into IOR.

does civilian authority want to keep mated n-payloads from driving around on our highways for fear of accidents and attacks? afaik the lead liner of these warheads is designed to contain radiation and permit safe handling. plus 100 A5 on trucks is far more survivable than 3 submarines which will be out of contact with IN HQ most of the time unless summoned to surface with a ELF signal. all kinds of vested interests could play under the surface false flag ops.

imo we need SSN and SSGN more than large SSBNs for now. a Yasen unloading its 40 or so zircons could shatter a range of vital targets along a enemy coast including ports, power plants, POL storages, bridges, transmission yards, train yards from 100s of km out. that is a conventional cost we can impose without going nuclear.

taking a leaf from the rodina, every future IN ship beyond 1500t should have deep silos aft for 8-24 of LACMs. and on kolkata and vizag classes relocate the rear Barak8 and make room for this. its a huge ship but lacks the vicious teeth of the smaller "buyan" class caspian sea corvettes

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 21 Dec 2017 10:08

Russia has the following advantages for land based deterrent
1. huge land mass
2. little inhabitation
3. very few moles, which can be made to disappear easily
we do not have any such luxury