INS Arihant (ATV) Launch News and Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 05:22

PM to launch indigenously-built nuclear submarine on July 26

"Right now we have no information about the event as such," the Navy official added. Said to be built under the Advanced Technology Vessels (ATV) Programme at a cost of 2.9 billion USD at the Naval Dockyard in Visakha patnam, the 6,000-tonne submarine will be put on sea trials for two years before being commissioned into full service

The ATV has been developed jointly by the Indian Navy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The nuclear reactor of the submarine has reportedly been developed at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, while the vessel is based on the Russian Akula-I class submarine.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 22 Jul 2009 06:59

Gagan wrote:
Philip wrote:The fact that we still haven't been able to complete a Kilo refit at Vizag should've been a suitable warning to the MOD/DRDO,who seem to think that if a committee passes it,it can be built.
The INS Sindhudhwaj has been in refit in a dry dock for approximately the last 10 years, right next to the covered shipbuilding center where the ATV is being built.

And we still claim that the ATV is inspired from a charlie class sub?

I say that the open and under repair Kilo also has given 'inspiration' to the subbuilders, located barely 20 feet across.

only by seeing some pictures of ATV tell what is truth not before that. but will those pictures allowed for public be clear enough to analyze on which design ATV has been built?

or MoD satisfying everyone with just 2-3 pictures of Manmohan ji and his wife and some babus and not even clear picture of ATV

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2009 08:31

Arun_S wrote:Hiding in ocean is like dog skating it territory by pissing on every tree stalk. All oceans of words and certainly Indian Ocean is littered with passive sensors of naval powers foriegn to Indian Ocean Region. So to think one can hide in depth of Indian Ocean is a risky proposition. These sensors that I am talking about are not only of the type that are tethered to buoys, but autonomous crafts that at various levels in between inversion layer(s).

Where can you hide from the dog poop, unless you also have technology to clean the poop and put your own ones there !

Arun , in that case we will have to move towards a bastion type of strategy , where we patrol in a selected zone(s) , protected by our own range of sensors placed in those zone and some SSN cover , this cannot give 100 % grantee against intrusion but gives a reasonable degree of assurance on SSBN safety and survivability.

But that would be the extreme end of the strategy , where one is constantly hounded by fear that one has a very high chance of constantly getting tracked and will be attacked in the first few minutes of war.

Exactly for the same reason mentioned by you that Soviets moved towards a bastion strategy , not sure IN can implement similar strategy or if its a viable one for us.

Added Later: One of the key reason I feel a rail mobile system with a certain % being on deterrent patrol is a safer bet for India , out there in the sea its a bad world out there

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 22 Jul 2009 09:30

This article mentions that Germany is developing an anti-torpedo missile, with all the ABM research happening in India, an ATV armed with similar systems can have active defense

http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1

maybe it comes down to the cost of advancing the stealth of the entire platform vs. cost of developing the above technology

a second one is a underwater autonomous vehicle (UAV) that can be launched from the ATV, the ATV shifts to super silent mode while this UAV maintains the "normal" ATV signature and diverts the attention of any pursuers especially surface combatants which aren't stealth by themselves

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 22 Jul 2009 13:07

This article mentions that Germany is developing an anti-torpedo missile, with all the ABM research happening in India, an ATV armed with similar systems can have active defense

-anti torpedo missile have been also developed by Russia some time back and now being marketed internationally - it was dispalyed in St petersburg - Igorr saw it also -Shankarosky

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 22 Jul 2009 13:08

PM Manmohan Singh's Vishakapatnam Itenary is Scheduled

On 26th July 2009,He will reach Vishakapatnam From Delhi, by a special plane at 11 am,and will attend IN Inauguration Ceremony of INS Arihanth and will return back to delhi by 1:50 Pm

Courtesy telugu daily Eenadu

INS Arihanth

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2009 14:16

4 more days now.

junta can hardly keep their cool.

would be nice if livefist could get a sneak-peek but dont think so.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jul 2009 15:49

The ATV will/should be protected if need be by N-attack subs like the Akula,I did not suggest by AIP subs,but these subs are particularly useful when defending bases.I've suggested that we have 12 N-subs at least.6 SSBNs and 6 SSGNs,as it takes three subs to keep one at sea all the time and we need at least two SSBNs at any time on patrol.Please read my post in the Intl.navies thread about Pak's sub ambitions,as they are now trying to get French subs as Germany is a dilemna about selling them subs.We will need at least 12 AIP conventional subs to deal with Pak and have another 12 for duty for the Bay of Bengal and far East patrols.The nuclear subs,SSGNs,will be tasked for true blue-water ops in any ocean if required.A combaination of conventional and nuclear powered subs is most cost-effective.We aren't the USN with billions in the N-sub budget allocation!

The advent of UUVs which will be operated by mother subs,of which there are several prototypes under development and several black projects too,is going to make the task of defending naval bases even more difficult.For recce and carrying out dangerous underwater missions like laying mines,delivering remote controlled explosives,etc.,UUVs are going to be the preferred option as UCAVs are likewise doing in the skies.The US even have developed a silo launched UCAV which is recoverable for their converted OHIO class SSGNs,formerly SSBNs.UUV development is another area where the IN has to take the initiative apart from the building of conventional and N-subs.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 22 Jul 2009 16:04

Shankar wrote: -anti torpedo missile have been also developed by Russia some time back and now being marketed internationally - it was dispalyed in St petersburg - Igorr saw it also -Shankarosky

Russian Paket-NK is for surface ships only. German missile is just another Shkval, useless for anti-torpedo role.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2009 16:06

I thought for anti-torp people use the decoys, are there any sub based hard kill measure in service anywhere ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2009 16:09

Well even if we manage to fund 3 - 5 SSBN , 1 - 2 Akula with 24 SSK that would be a dream run

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 22 Jul 2009 17:13

Philip wrote:We will need at least 12 AIP conventional subs to deal with Pak and have another 12 for duty for the Bay of Bengal and far East patrols.The nuclear subs,SSGNs,will be tasked for true blue-water ops in any ocean if required.A combaination of conventional and nuclear powered subs is most cost-effective.

We do need a few more AIP for Pakistan than we currently have but may be not 12. I don't think AIP will be much help against China. GOI has approved 30 year sub plan which calls for 30 subs. I will much rather have most of these be indigenous SSGN. Because even if each SSGN costs double the AIP, it is indigenous which boosts the economy while imported AIPs have negative effect. If we were to indeed try to build some 20 SSGN (some can be used as baby SSBN let the enemy guess which one) it will put a fear of god in Chinks.

The advent of UUVs which will be operated by mother subs,of which there are several prototypes under development and several black projects too,is going to make the task of defending naval bases even more difficult.

Agreed

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Jul 2009 17:19

Austin wrote:Well even if we manage to fund 3 - 5 SSBN , 1 - 2 Akula with 24 SSK that would be a dream run

I take decades to build a navy. I would like that we peep in future (2025 - 2050) and build our forces accordingly. If we are satisfied with 30 subs which will be made available by 2030, we may again find that gap between IN and PLAN has widened like never before. It is time to take some conscious decision.

I think we need the following by 2030 to have any credible force

SSBN - 10 (each with 12/15 VLS tubes with Agni 3/5 SL)
SSGN - 10
SSK - 30
Total - 50

Not to mention PLAN operates around 60 subs today. I know many will be retired by then, but still new and capable one will are being developed / built.

I know pathetic state of Indian sub building industry. But L&T is making huge investment in this area. I think if Navy can partner L &T for its sub building the above is possible.

-Nitin

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Jul 2009 17:30

Is there any separate humor thread, I have interesting and humorous article regarding Indian response if Pak initiates a Ballistic missile strike. Don't know where to post.

Mods - will delete this post once a proper thread is suggested.

-Nitin

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 22 Jul 2009 17:50

I know pathetic state of Indian sub building industry. But L&T is making huge investment in this area. I think if Navy can partner L &T for its sub building the above is possible.

not an impossible dream -LT is doing much more than in public domain -two if not three more arihant type hull is in advanced dtage of fabrication according to some report - and the reactor miniaturization know how is now available - so no reason why we canot roll out 0ne every year from now so by 2050 we should have 40 odd nuclear subs

private sector will expand capacity as of yesterday once hey see the colour of navy money and so will the russian assistance increase in the next decade

an achievable dream if we can maintain our economic growth

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Jul 2009 18:01

Shankar wrote:
I know pathetic state of Indian sub building industry. But L&T is making huge investment in this area. I think if Navy can partner L &T for its sub building the above is possible.
not an impossible dream -LT is doing much more than in public domain -two if not three more arihant type hull is in advanced dtage of fabrication according to some report - and the reactor miniaturization know how is now available - so no reason why we canot roll out 0ne every year from now so by 2050 we should have 40 odd nuclear subs

private sector will expand capacity as of yesterday once hey see the colour of navy money and so will the russian assistance increase in the next decade

an achievable dream if we can maintain our economic growth

Do we need 40 nuclear boats? Or even 40 boats?

Even if we assume that we do, who is going to pay for these 40 odd nuclear subs assuming we can roll out one every year (which is

a pipe dream)?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Jul 2009 18:08

There is not going to be a dozen N-subs in the IN any time soon. What will realistically happen, I think is this.

It will take about two years for the Arihant to complete its testing and the changes if any required in its design to be incorporated into the second vessel of its class. Please note that there is only one drydock in india where a nuke sub gets built, assembly of prefabricated pieces of each sub will itself take about 3 years minimum.

By the time the third sub is building, the first sub will be due for a reactor replacement or refueling. This sub will have to be drydocked, cut open, and the reactor refueled, a six month long process including re-testing the sub again before it gets handed over to the navy. This is all considering that the arihant, the first ever N-sub building experience that india has embarked on, performs flawlessly. Any problems with its reactor, and the sub will have to be brought into the drydock.

The SSBN, will be an even more difficult proposition than the arihant. It will be a much bigger vessel, and there will be a need to incorporate even higher levels of noise quietening on it. The navalized agni-3 missile will only be ready in about 5-6 years, that is when the SSBN will likely roll out too. Arihant will continue to deploy the K-15 (When it is finally cleared for the sub operations) until its first refit.

Realistically, by 2015-17:
1. L&T and DRDO will build two Arihant SSGN prototypes and One SSBN = 3 N subs
2. IN will operate, one or two Akula-2 subs = 1-2 N subs.
A total of 4-5 N subs.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 22 Jul 2009 18:32

merlin wrote:
Shankar wrote: not an impossible dream -LT is doing much more than in public domain -two if not three more arihant type hull is in advanced dtage of fabrication according to some report - and the reactor miniaturization know how is now available - so no reason why we canot roll out 0ne every year from now so by 2050 we should have 40 odd nuclear subs

private sector will expand capacity as of yesterday once hey see the colour of navy money and so will the russian assistance increase in the next decade

an achievable dream if we can maintain our economic growth
Do we need 40 nuclear boats? Or even 40 boats?

Even if we assume that we do, who is going to pay for these 40 odd nuclear subs assuming we can roll out one every year (which is a pipe dream)?

I doubt the luckky number 40.

But a highly realistic number is 15-20 SSN and 3-5 SSBN.

An important point to note is that not all boats will be powered by Uranium

The numbers that are on paper to maintain force levels according to MOD team are to have a minimum of 30 SSK`s and the above said N boats.

While the 3-5 SSBN`s will incorporate highly significant design changes which has to be ultimate nuclear deterrent.(significant design changes in the sense----not only noise level reduction or quietness,but also the number of warheads they carry to cripple the enemies confidence levels

)
Will try to bring more stuff onboard on my next visit .

Jai Hind.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Jul 2009 18:49

jaladipc wrote:I doubt the luckky number 40.

But a highly realistic number is 15-20 SSN and 3-5 SSBN.

An important point to note is that not all boats will be powered by Uranium

The numbers that are on paper to maintain force levels according to MOD team are to have a minimum of 30 SSK`s and the above said N boats.

The number you are suggesting is close to what i have suggested. Only difference being the type of submarine SSBN or SSGN.

I suggested 30 SSK, 10 SSBN and 10 SSGN

I would prefer to have 50 : 50 ratio between SSGN and SSBN so as to ensure sufficient deterrence and considerable MAD.

Any ways if MOD is seriously considering these figures, it is good.

-Cheers, Nitin

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 22 Jul 2009 19:35

These articles will give a general idea as to what the IN capbility should be to increase its strategic reach in the IOR and also counter PLAN.

That should give an idea of how many submarines IN should have.

VI. UNLOCKING INDIAN MARITIME CAPABILITIES

Page 85
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

A new doctrine for the Navy
Vol:21 Iss:14 URL: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2114/stories/2 ... 104600.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thsc ... &prd=fline&

The Maritime Dimension of Energy Security
http://www.usiofindia.org/article_Jul_Sep04_5.htm

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2009 21:45

Folks, the mobile missile / launcher discussion has been moved to a new thread. Please continue that discussion there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2009 23:02

to roll out 1 sub a year needs a astonishing ramp up in all fronts from construction to crew training to production of missiles and warheads. assuming each sub takes 5 yrs to build, there'd have to be 5 in construction at all times.

what I find amazing is that USSR went through around 300 nuke subs in a span of around 40 years

we can onlee dream of such 'scaling'

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 22 Jul 2009 23:42

Singha wrote: what I find amazing is that USSR went through around 300 nuke subs in a span of around 40 years we can onlee dream of such 'scaling'

But then USSR also used its subs like US uses Pakistan - use and throw!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 00:01

The USSR had half a dozen sub building ports in action where they were mass building several subs at a time. All they way from Saint Petersburg to Severodvinsk to Sevastopol to Nizhni Novogrod to Komsomolsk-na-Amur.

India has two such ports only. The mazgaon docks where the scorpene is building, and vizag, where one sub at a time can be built.

Is it possible to estimate how much uranium is needed to operate a fleet of 5 nuclear subs over their lifetime? I am sure the cost of refining and enrichment of the stuff must be exorbitant.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2009 00:22

Singha wrote:what I find amazing is that USSR went through around 300 nuke subs in a span of around 40 years we can onlee dream of such 'scaling'

These are the people who built thirty thousand nuclear warheads and armed their client states around the world to the teeth. The term "superpower" is bandied about so much these days ("regional superpower" and such foolishness) that we sometimes forget what it meant.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2009 00:49

they also stockpiled close to 100,000 SAMs

btw the first pix of Arihant model and Scorpene sensor suite are up on livefist

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 23 Jul 2009 01:00

The model whose pics are on livefist is that of the Akula II, not the ATV.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 23 Jul 2009 01:02

merlin wrote:Do we need 40 nuclear boats? Or even 40 boats?

Even if we assume that we do, who is going to pay for these 40 odd nuclear subs assuming we can roll out one every year (which is a pipe dream)?

The 30 year submarine plan by GoI calls for a submarine to be built each year i.e. 30 submarines in 30 years. I don't think the current plan calls for all of these being nuclear but think about it this way 7% GDP growth means economy doubles every 10 years. So a $30 billion defence budget today will $60 billion defence budget in 2020 and $120 billion defence budget in 2030. When talking about a decade or two it isn't such a pipe dream.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jul 2009 01:11

Raja Bose wrote:

what I find amazing is that USSR went through around 300 nuke subs in a span of around 40 years we can onlee dream of such 'scaling'

The USSR had half a dozen sub building ports in action where they were mass building several subs at a time. All they way from Saint Petersburg to Severodvinsk to Sevastopol to Nizhni Novogrod to Komsomolsk-na-Amur.

But then USSR also used its subs like US uses Pakistan - use and throw!

There is a reason for this due to Russian naval doctrine.
The had full patrol of both the coast of Americas from the start of the nuclear submarine program till late 80s.
It needed this large fleet to keep the surveillance.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 23 Jul 2009 01:14

This 'GDP growth' misunderstanding has been repeated way too many times. Let me be clear: the statistical GDP growth rate is not the rate at which the real world economy grows. It is a statistical figure indicating growth minus monetary inflation. In the real world, 8% growth typically means the economy grew by 12-13% that year; to maintain defence spending/GDP ratio, defence spending must grow at a minimum 12-13% each year. For example, between 1999-00 and present day, Indian GDP tripled in USD terms. Please read the last few pages of the economy thread - there was a recent discussion on related topics.

Back to ATV news here.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 23 Jul 2009 01:27

Suraj wrote:This 'GDP growth' misunderstanding has been repeated way too many times. Let me be clear: the statistical GDP growth rate is not the rate at which the real world economy grows. It is a statistical figure indicating growth minus monetary inflation. In the real world, 8% growth typically means the economy grew by 12-13% that year; to maintain defence spending/GDP ratio, defence spending must grow at a minimum 12-13% each year. For example, between 1999-00 and present day, Indian GDP tripled in USD terms. Please read the last few pages of the economy thread - there was a recent discussion on related topics.

Correct and I am talking real rupees as cost of submarine in 2030 will not be same in 2010. GoI budget has kept pace with nominal growth of economy i.e. the ratio of gdp to GoI budget is mostly fixed. So the assumption above isn't a bad one.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2009 16:22

None can match the German W2 U-boat construction capability of "40" subs per month! 2.800+ Allied ships (about 15 million tons) were sunk by U-boats alone during the war.

India can easily-if we get focussed it,build at least one-two conventional subs per year,with two lines of conventional subs and one nuclear sub every two -three years.If we concentrate on building the ATV series,we can get the second class of attack subs SSGNs like the Akula-3 or a future design built in Russia.If there are comkonalities in eqpt.,weaponry,etc. in both the ATV and the SSGNs,it will make the task of later SSGNs built in India easier.Our top priority is to get the full number of ATVs built as fast as possible to secure our sttrategic deterrent.This is needed especially because China is rapidly expanding its navy and sub inventory,where it will have around 80 subs,nuclear and conventional,in addition to several carriers.The US is also trying to turn the screw on India and other would be nuclear weapon states,by devious means (sell-out /EUM thread) and limit our nuclear warhead production through the N-deal.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 23 Jul 2009 16:33

Philip wrote:None can match the German W2 U-boat construction capability of "40" subs per month! 2.800+ Allied ships (about 15 million tons) were sunk by U-boats alone during the war.

India can easily-if we get focussed it,build at least one-two conventional subs per year,with two lines of conventional subs and one nuclear sub every two -three years.If we concentrate on building the ATV series,we can get the second class of attack subs SSGNs like the Akula-3 or a future design built in Russia.If there are comkonalities in eqpt.,weaponry,etc. in both the ATV and the SSGNs,it will make the task of later SSGNs built in India easier.Our top priority is to get the full number of ATVs built as fast as possible to secure our sttrategic deterrent.This is needed especially because China is rapidly expanding its navy and sub inventory,where it will have around 80 subs,nuclear and conventional,in addition to several carriers.The US is also trying to turn the screw on India and other would be nuclear weapon states,by devious means (sell-out /EUM thread) and limit our nuclear warhead production through the N-deal.

the point is not that of capability, but that of "will".

it is not whether we can, but whether we will.

There is serious lack of long term strategic vision - both from the users & leaders.. Especially the leaders..

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 23 Jul 2009 17:17

The model whose pics are on livefist is that of the Akula II, not the ATV.

correct and that is what our Arihant should be loking like -i think -shankarosky

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2009 17:36

There is a reason for this due to Russian naval doctrine.

A fairly unknown word for Indian politicians.

Baluchistan!!!!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Jul 2009 19:42

As per some estimates, the IN should have three CBGs to dominate the Indian Ocean Rim.

Therefore, how many subs and how many freewheeling with SLBMs off China?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 23 Jul 2009 20:04

RayC wrote:As per some estimates, the IN should have three CBGs to dominate the Indian Ocean Rim. Therefore, how many subs and how many freewheeling with SLBMs off China?

USN carrier group has two nuclear submarines for each carrier. But we will have many more battle groups based on just destroyers. Another way to look at it is how many will China have.

Each baby SLBM (ATV) has Sagarika missile which isn't MIRV. So even counting replacement we are not going to have more than 24 warheads each 20KT. With this math we seem to need many many SLBM. I hope this math changes soon e.g. American SLBM carries 100-200 warheads each 200KT.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2009 20:12

abhiti wrote:Each baby SLBM (ATV) has Sagarika missile which isn't MIRV. So even counting replacement we are not going to have more than 24 warheads each 20KT.

The yield of the Sagarika warhead is not known. It could very well be a 90-100kt TN one.

American SLBM carries 100-200 warheads each 200KT.

No. Fewer than 1 in 8 of the SLBM warheads are W88 (475 kt). The majority of the US arsenal consists of W76 warheads. These have a yield of 100 kt.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jul 2009 20:13

As per some estimates, the IN should have three CBGs to dominate the Indian Ocean Rim. Therefore, how many subs and how many freewheeling with SLBMs off China?

the 30 yr sub building plan called for construction of 25 subs, 20 conventional and 5 nuclear.
the split between SSBN and SSNs was not specified.

although, IMHO it is time to increase the share of nuke subs, a total of 30 in total with
5 SSBNs, 10 SSNs and 15 SSKs seems better for the task.

the three AC envisaged 2 active at most times, that would mean 2X2 =4 SSN screens at any point of time. the rest can be away ideally tailing enemy SSBNs.

also, at some point of time we will definitely have the LPD class ships as mini CBGs mainly for defensive purposes or for shore based landings.

our backwaters (BoB and portions of IOR and Arabian Sea) can be sanitised with a combo of SSKs and MPAs.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 23 Jul 2009 20:40

Gerard wrote:
American SLBM carries 100-200 warheads each 200KT.
No. Fewer than 1 in 8 of the SLBM warheads are W88 (475 kt). The majority of the US arsenal consists of W76 warheads. These have a yield of 100 kt.

More accurately america has 24 submarines each with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

- SSBN-726 to SSBN-733 from construction to refueling
24 Trident I C4 SLBM with up to eight MIRVed 100kT W76 nuclear warheads, range 4,000 nmi (4,600 mi) (7,400km) i.e. 192 warheads = 100kT

- SSBN-734 and subsequent hulls upon construction, SSBN-730 to SSBN-733 since refueling
24 Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 MIRVed W76 or W88 (300-475kT) nuclear warheads, range 6,500 nmi (7,500 mi) (12,000km) i.e. 288 warheads >= 100kT

- SSGN conversion
22 tubes, each with 7 Tomahawk Cruise missiles.