INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2009 21:22

Nirbhay is a crucial project. they have to make it with a spring loaded air scoop
rather than a fixed intake and completely internal fins aka the desi tomahawkski.

- tube launched from submarines
- VL launch from submarines and ships
- truck launched from sealed tubes
- air launched

its got to be the swiss army knife and spawn a family of weapons of varying
range, sensors and warhead type - our own J-family.

hopefully some petite matsci brunette in the bowels of some govt lab came
up with the breakthroughs to make a williams type micro turbofan possible.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 21:23

Added later: While the subs themselves cost hajaar crores, the crew are some of the best-trained, most dedicated, smart and very very special people in the world. I consider it a total criminal waste to have these people spend their years just waiting around for Dooms-din and not being able to do any other missions - when there are so many targets deserving of an SLCM through their ventilator shaft, or an SOF team paying them a visit.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 30 Jul 2009 21:33

Arihantr as Third leg of Triad of Nuclear deterrence is very unlike the other two legs. The Air delivered and Surface launched Missiles legs of Triad have dual role (offensive {Tactical} and defensive{Deterrence}), and in case of hostilities the tactical warfare will be played by these two arms.

In case these two arms of Triade are wiped out or seriously degraded (I.e. major nuclear exchange has already occurred) the submarine leg of triad is the trump card that is only based on "Tandav" class mass destruction at any range (no less and no different), unless one is filthy rich and crazy like US/USSR SSBN will not be used for tactical nuclear war fighting. Given that India is rice eating SRDE the submarine based triad thus to has carry "Long Range Missile" and "high yield warhead". And one can easily see why proven TN warheads are the required "Capstone" to sustain this SSBN role.

When India is filthy rich, and with a fleet of 50 SSBN then carrying short legged Sagarika will make sense.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2009 21:37

Nitin , may be I did not put it the right way , these subs were any way suppose to be scrapped after post cold war review , but they just made better use of it , but it is not at the cost of their SSBN deterrence.

If you have between 1 to 3 Arihant types in next 8 -10 years or so , the mix payload perhaps is not a wise choice.

Agreed, SSGN cannot be at the cost of SSBN

With respect to mixed payload, as i have mentioned in my previous posts also, it is the preferred approach at this point of time considering declining sub levels, scorpenes delayed, RFP not yet sent for next line of sub and aging sub inventory. Mixed payload will help over come the situation. Also, as i mentioned in longer term, i would like to have dedicated SSBN and SSGN subs even though they may be capable of being used for both.

But what you suggest is also logical. With only 3 subs if it is mixed payload, it will greatly reduce the deterrence value

I am confused between both.. some one please englighten

-Nitin

PS - I don't see less than 6 subs in next 8 - 10 years. 3 will be available by 2015 only going by current reports..

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 21:37

Demarcation of primary roles is probably an excellent idea, because I am sure the eventual effectivness of the system has a lot to do with the crew's expertise, even with today's highly automated systems. Also, upgrading take time, so some ships should have priority on the boomer systems while others have priority on the Karachi Waterfront Reconstruction systems.

What drives me is primarily frustration that we can't do anything about the Paki terrorists, or Chinese encroachers, or Fijian tinpots or Somali pirates despite having all these New Clear Detergents. I see Arihant as having the potential to put a real tinge of fear in all these twerps.

Suspected missile attack destroys Fijian Presidential Palace; no one claims responsibility. Australia accuses India and US, both deny responsibility. "Missiles said Made in China"

Mysterious collapse of multistoreyed building on Karachi waterfront; no one hurt. Pakistan accuses India, no one believes them. Pakistan asks for urgent talks with India

Note that Russia's stock in the duniya shot up after what happened to the Georgian tinpot. 10,000 nuclear warheads did nothing for them and did not deter the tinpot from committing mass murder. Russian WILLINGNESS to use conventional weaponry did.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 22:04

narayanan wrote: Mysterious collapse of multistoreyed building on Karachi waterfront; no one hurt. Pakistan accuses India, no one believes them. Pakistan asks for urgent talks with India

Yes but we can do that even today, if we wanted couldnt we. The issue has never been the hardware anyway.

Yes I would love to have another accidental vaccum air bulb burst where Dawood were to cop it, like some Balochs turned in his brother for his six gaz zaameen.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 22:14

We cannot do it today because our weapons platforms are all located and their locations are known, so there is no deniability. That means that TSP "has" to respond, which means war. The beauty of the "suspected Predator strike" is that the TSP govt can plead "proof" and hence avoid going to war without totally losing H&D.

For the case of the Fijian or Somalis, the range and window of strike opportunity is the issue. If an Indian diesel sub or frigate is known to be on patrol in the area, well, they will take a vacation. But an Arihant can just disappear for a few weeks, and show up nearly anywhere - and then disappear again - or strike without ever surfacing. The few who know which way it has gone, are not likely to tell.

So there is a big difference. Missile fragments will provide evidence, but those can be fixed to misidentify them, and once the dummies have gone public with a ridiculous claim, no one will believe them afterwards. Anyway, this borders on OT, will stop here.

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

narayanan wrote:We cannot do it today because our weapons platforms are all located and their locations are known, so there is no deniability.

Dont understand, Kilo's with Klubs? How different are they for the purpose that you suggest from a Akula or Arihant emptying its tubes?

In fact I had been thinking for quite some time -- take a dhow, rig a one time firing missile system on it, let loose at Karachi and blame the Somalians (of course sink the dhow and pick up the crew by a sub) For good measure use something that Russian have given to Iranians too. Exact same make and specs.

Seriously Arihant/Akula is overkill for this job -- "chooha marna hai, jhadoo kafi hai, leking ham to choohe palane pe lage hoone hain" (we have to get a mouse, a broom suffices, only if we stop keeping it as pet first though)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 22:19

narayanan wrote:
Integrated conventional and .. patrol.

Being proactive Navy will hardly let such a huge capital investment go wasted in single purpose mission. Case in point is IAC.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 22:23

ramana wrote: To all arguing on TN and karela, the more important is the delivery vehicle of long range. All else is passe at this time.

Dont know what Chennai folks are going to say next time when someone mentioned TN as duds.
Suprise, US folks are talking about recessed / relaxed deterence( whatever that means) nowadays. Wondering that will have cascading effect throught?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 22:27

I have to disagree with all u experts. Whether I had 1 or 100, my preference would be the same: make them all multipurpose and scatter them on patrol in tough times. Let Hong Shin or the tinpot dictators sit and wonder whether I have nX SLBMs or 0.7nX + 0.6n SLCMs, or 0.3n SOF teams, or something else.

Infact scattering of N weapon isnt restricted to sub alone. There seems to be some grand plan.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 22:34

Austin wrote:
Kanson wrote:I'm not against having improved Scorpene as a s-line. But having various classes of Surface combatants operated by IN in the same category, how it could be that having 2 subs can be perceived as logistic nightmare to IN. SSN and SSK comes under two different categories.
That is the reason IN is moving towards Standard frigate like P-17/17A with LM2500 being the standard powerplant , ditto for weapons system Brahmos .. etc etc , they will have as much as possible standards in powerplant , IP/CMS , weapons etc

Most of the current fleet is due to legacy where we took stuff since they were available at soft credit or virtually free , ditto for Kilo... the first 6 -8 Kilo were offered virtually free ( 21 years soft credit , barter calculated by MOF as nearly free ) by SU.

Standardization of Weapons/Platform/Spares across all 3 service in their respective area is the key towards achieving lower operating cost and the entire end to end logistics chain supply

ji, you left out Talwar, Godavari and other old class..

There is always a balance between standardisation and upgradtion. US makes that through block upgrades. We have different requrements as time taken for completion is huge further we are loooking fo rmore tech infusion through various projects. Though I agree wih your last statement in general. And the balance seems to around 6 earlier 3

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 30 Jul 2009 22:53

Austin,

The navy may standardize the destroyers on P-15/15a/15b but the frigate line for the next 20 odd years will be P-17 and mods, talwars and B class. I don't see why having 2 classes of SSK's 1 class of SSN and 1 boomer would affect the navy too much? The scorpene cannot carry VLS brahmos it is too big for that tiny sub.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 23:15

Yes Block upgrade is the way for fleet standardisation and modernisation.

Yes I am aware Scorpene is tiny to use your word , hence I mentioned a modified scorpene , have you checked on Spains S80 which is based on scorpene design and is like ~ 30 % larger

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 31 Jul 2009 00:04

narayanan wrote: P.S. I agree with ramana: the range (and submerged endurance) of the delivery vehicle - I assume you mean the sub not the rocket - is the big game-changer.

Nothing like an ICBM effect at SDRE prices for each bullet expended.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 Jul 2009 00:23

narayanan wrote: Do they put active armor on these things, like on tanks? I have heard that the most effective underwater explosions are those which inflate a bubble, whose collapse generates a supersonic (I mean for water ) jet, and pokes a hole in the hull. Hurts my head to try to figure out how that would happen, but I know it does. maybe they use the same technology that the Paki Shoe Bomber's soles did. Seems like active armor may be able to stop that?

N^3
I thought that anti-sub weapons work in two ways. The first is the crude hammer way where you set off explosions underwater. Water being incompressible, is a better conductor of shockwaves and this propagating shockwave just crushes the sub. The way in which it works is that the explosion causes a giant bubble which radiates a shockwave outside, then this bubble collapses creating a incoming shockwave, and then it radiates outwards, keeps going till the bubble vents to the surface. Think of a hesh round, which doesnt need to stick to the surface, because water is incompressible -- it transmits the shockwave for hundreds of meters. The insides of the sub would spall sending pieces flying out everywhere.

During WWII, the reflected shockwave from the bottom of the ocean sometimes destroyed subs.

The disadvantage with this weapon is that whether or not the explosion is effective, there is loss of sonar contact till the shockwaves dissipate, giving a sub some time to escape. The second set of weapons like british hedgehog (or our own RBU-6000) fire rockets which are fuzed to not explode till they make contact with the sub. These are shaped charges that dont necessarily need to puncture the hull, a crack or weakening is good enough. The water pressure would crack the hull open. A miss does not spoil sonar contact because there is no explosion.

I always thought that a firecracker type (bunch of small bombs fuzed to go off in rapid intervals) ejected from a torpedo tube from a sub could be a good idea to confuse a ship's sonar.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jul 2009 00:42

n^3 ji, I don't get why we should make the arihant class a SSBN/SSGN combo.

assuming the released specs are true, at its best (which is certainly some years from now) each such vessel could have only four nuke-tipped SLBMs aimed at the PRC.

even considering PRC's relatively modest deployed nuclear capability, that would still mean at least 100-150 nukes(conservative estimate) that can be made to bear upon tier-1 and tier-2 Indian cities and of course any other place of strategic interest. and this is from the land based BMs alone i.e not counting a) bombers b) nuclear capable fighters c) land attack cruise missiles d) SLBMs.

arrayed against this arsenal, I would humbly submit that even the 3 arihants when commisioned with their full IRBM load of 4 K-X each, does not constitute a minimum credible deterrent, simply because not all of them can be deployed at the same time.

mind it, it might still be enough of a deterrent if the PRC is loathe to accept any loss as the cost of wiping out India in its current form. but making such an assumption on the lack of resolve of the enemy is a strictly self-serving argument of the paki gernail variety (Yindia will not attack us 'cuz of nooks ala kargil)

or even if we expect PRC to hold on to NFU as we will do. again, depending on your adversary's 'benevolent nature' to ansure peace might not be the brightest idea for national security.

also, what if they are ready to accept (say) the destruction of chengdu as a reasonable exchange(to them, not to us) for Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Chandigarh, Kolkata, B'lore, Chennai, Hyderabad, T'puram, all refineries, auto plants, OFB factories(those that are still standing) all military heavy industries and major ports ? and they decide to keep AP for good measure ?

this scenario can be prevented only iff PRC believes that India has the ability to inflict major 'unacceptable' damage to it, IOW minimum credible deterrence (MCD).

-----------------------
So what constitutes MCD wrt PRC ?
I would humbly suggest that credible ability and intent to destroy at least 5-6 cities including shanghai, beijing, tianjin, shenyang, guangzhou, chengdu and xian or changchun in case of a nuclear attack on India would deter any PRC glorious leader.
these cities constitute the very heart of china's economic and industrial prowess as also most of the major institutes. they have a larger than proportional importance to the overall PRC sense of nation that would mean that a threat to these would serve as enough of a deterrent.

and for that ability to be credible you must have at least one SSBN in the oceans at all times armed with something like 10-12 long range SLBMs.

---------------
let me reiterate that I'm NOT advocating MAD, nor massive retaliation. I agree with n^3 that once you achieve MCD you should pour all your resources in developing conventional weapons.

In fact this was a very important thought in some deterrence literature, that once nuclear balance has been achieved (NOTE : balance and not parity) it will be the conventional arms that tip the balance.
---------------

coming back to the subs, post launch reports suggest that we are indeed building a bigger class of SSBNs. repeating an idea that i had posted in the very first few pages of this thread (or rather the previous one) I think once 2-3 SSBNs are deployed in the IN, we can then convert the arihants to SSGN/SSN combo. in fact, I would expect that all future IN attack subs except the initial batch of scorpenes would have some ability to fire cruise missiles. it makes perfect sense to add GM ability to SSNs, these boats would be under the direct control of the navy and it is their job to go into harm's way and hunt enemy ships and subs. CM firing ability gives them a stand-off capability which just adds to their flexibility.

but making SSBN/SSGN combo is not a good idea IMHO, for one these ships would be under the direct command of NCA.
secondly, the deployment patterns of a deterrence patrol and that of a SSGN/SF ship are quite different, the former seeks to avoid any contact with other platforms while the later has to show up in various odd places to do its job.
combining the two will negatively impact the ability of the sub to perform either role and that in turn would jeopardise India's thin MCD.
not advisable, IMHO.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Jul 2009 01:50

India, Pakistan, INS Arihant and the Security Dilemma

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jul 2009 02:34

Gerard wrote:India, Pakistan, INS Arihant and the Security Dilemma

interesting article gerard, I had posted similar thoughts on an incapacitating strike on pakistan's nuclear capability in the aftermath of 26/11.
and I agree with the author that the arihant will be a perfect tool for this.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 77#p578877

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 31 Jul 2009 02:42

Interview with the outgoing Russian ambassador:

Then, in our military-technical relationship, a high percentage of Indian arms equipment still has a high Russian content. I watched the launch of India’s first nuclear submarine at Vishakapatnam on July 26, and do you know about the design of this submarine? It is the Akula (the Russian submarine).

So where was the Indian submarine designed and built?
Here in India !

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 5C/365376/

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Jul 2009 05:46

Aiyyoooooo! I don't know anything about subs!

Anujan: Circa 1985-95, there was a very active R&D initiative called "Underwater Explosions". All I know about it is that they were creating jets from the bubble collapse. IOW, very very focused and directional, instead of the spherical shock wave whose energy goes down rapidly with distance. You may find papers on it on the 'web because the program itself (what I could see) was open-literature. Of course these days it may have disappeared from websites for several reasons.

Rahul: No argument with the MCD and MAD calculations, but these are still "DoomsDin" calculations. As someone pointed out here, it would be a terrible, unconscionable waste to limit such a huge investment, to the single use of wandering about carrying 4 never-2-b-used mijjiles and doing nothing else. So this does not appear to be a reasonable use of scarce resources.

Is India unacceptably unsafe and in Clear, Present/ Imminent Danger without the MCD of SLBMs?

Well... I would find that very hard to explain to a nation that does not even believe in tying seat-belts and happily goes around on bicycles without helmets. Bhavitavyam Bhavet Eva etc. From the gentle pace of this project I would not believe that MCD is such an urgent driver - 3 years of sea-trials before commissioning?

I think a nuclear submarine is a very potent, multipurpose weapon system, and apparently that is the way the Indian defence department describes it, going by that "Restricted" PPT slide that Kanson posted (Alloo Kanson, do we all have to be killed now?) I posted the relevant sentence from that. "conventional" and "patrol".

During the Cold War, the US and SU were in a constant bissing match, and they were each pushing as hard as they could. It really was a War. So then these sorts of dedicated Boomers and Killers made sense. Note that the moment the Cold War ended, the US has brought the Tridents back for conversion to fly butterflies out of them.
Is India really heading for such a fine relationship with China and repeat all the nonsense of the Cold War? Or seeking to develop a global naval presence to project effectiveness? I would hope it is the latter.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 31 Jul 2009 06:01

From Suman Sharma's blog post:

Met ATV officers today, who gave an idea about the reactor and the safety mechanisms inside the submarine. The reactor of the 'indigenous' INS Arihant, bought from the Russian OKBM through Rubin, located in the sixth compartment of the 8-compartment hull of the nuclear submarine, will get started in about a month's time. The reactor controlled by the CRDM--Controlled Red Drive Mechanism, has got neutrons seperated from the fissionable material by cadmium rods, which are removed when the reactor is to be started, and thus the reactor or the heart of the submarine begins, thereby beginning the electricity, and all other operations of the submarine.

All those working around the submarine are supposed to wear dose recording meters,. to record how much radiation has gone into the body and if it is not within permissible limits, the personnel will be removed from the site.

There are other gadgets also to be worn at all time by those inside the sub.

The submarine has lead, concrete pipes inside to control radiation. Also, I was told, that out of the alpha, beta and gamma radiation, the most dangerous are gamma radiations. Out of the eight compartments in the ATV, only the 6th is which requires utmost care, While one by one each of the compartments get ready to activate, I am getting ready to recieve exclusive pictures for the first time of the actual ATV in harbour action, to be put up here soon. Keep watching.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 31 Jul 2009 06:22

Rahul M wrote:n^3 ji, I don't get why we should make the arihant class a SSBN/SSGN combo.

assuming the released specs are true, at its best (which is certainly some years from now) each such vessel could have only four nuke-tipped SLBMs aimed at the PRC.

even considering PRC's relatively modest deployed nuclear capability, that would still mean at least 100-150 nukes(conservative estimate) that can be made to bear upon tier-1 and tier-2 Indian cities and of course any other place of strategic interest. and this is from the land based BMs alone i.e not counting a) bombers b) nuclear capable fighters c) land attack cruise missiles d) SLBMs.

arrayed against this arsenal, I would humbly submit that even the 3 arihants when commisioned with their full IRBM load of 4 K-X each, does not constitute a minimum credible deterrent, simply because not all of them can be deployed at the same time.

mind it, it might still be enough of a deterrent if the PRC is loathe to accept any loss as the cost of wiping out India in its current form. but making such an assumption on the lack of resolve of the enemy is a strictly self-serving argument of the paki gernail variety (Yindia will not attack us 'cuz of nooks ala kargil)

Excuse me for butting into the middle of an interesting conversation, but I feel that MAD SHAD etc. nuclear doctrines developed in the european context break down in the Asian context.

First question to ask is, what do we need to deter China from?

Full scale destruction of any nation on the earth is simply not on the table any more. World opinion and interconnectedness will not permit it, without very significant costs to the winning party.

Apart from that, our rivalry with China is not civilizational in nature, its tactical.

In my mind, the only thing that we need to deter China from is a landgrab operation in the NE and Sikkim, and a 'teach them a lesson' operation in general.

However, deterring China from such a Salami slicing operation is a humongous task for India. The reasons are:~
1) The Chinese, if they put their mind to it, can easily build an overwhelming conventional superiority in the NE
2) India is not a homogeneous nation.

What stops China from first creating conventional superiority in the NE, then launching a conventional operation to take Arunachal. If India looses, the question faced by New Delhi will be, are they willing to exchange Arunachal for New Delhi/Bombay? [Sure, the Chinese will loose a few cities, but what would India have gained? Arunachal for Delhi/Bombay/..., if that] Its a difficult question to answer..

One can pose the other side of this equation and ask if the Chinese are willing to risk Beijing for Arunachal? This question must be asked by the Chinese themselves and answered satisfactorily before they embark upon a move like this.

Ultimately, it will boil down to a question of national will. Indian will for such an exchange would be hard to forge because reason (2) above, while China being a totalitarian regime will find it much easier.

The only way out of this predicament is to maintain local superiority and strategic parity at all times. Small kt devices will not do, we need the big mt devices. My belief is that at the right time, they will come.

Thankfully, the powers that be appear to understand this and hence the flurry of things getting sorted out recently. [mountain divs, atv, greater alignment with USA...]

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Jul 2009 07:26

OT for this thread, but I will post this brief observation triggered by the excellent post above (I don't agree with the conclusion that MT weapons are needed, for reasons explained many times b4, but I agree with the rest of the post): anyone in the business of figuring out how to deter/ ensure friendly relations with China, should note one historical fact. The ONLY nation to have "taught a lesson" to the PRC is Vietnam. That war was totally conventional, Chinese nukes did not do them any good, and ended with the Chinese, well, not wanting to talk about it any more. Apparently in the Heroic People's War Museum in Beijing, there are entire floors devoted to the Korean War and the Chinese contributions to the Vietnam War (against the US), but the Vietnam-China conflict does not find mention.

So how did poor little Vietnam achieve this? I believe it was because they had large mobile tactical forces that could operate as small teams, in very hostile terrain. The casualty figure mentioned is over 100,000 dead, but I don't know the order of magnitude of uncertainty in this. This should also be considered by Indian planners - don't expect the PRC to learn any "lessons" until losses reach that level - it's not going to end with 500 Indian deaths. A war with PRC cannot be won with 3 submarines or 100 strike aircraft.

Hope if anyone wants to discuss that they do so in another thread, but it may be vitally important for chankian planners to understand this. Translated to this thread, I would say that if India can threaten to knock the Chinese presence out of south Myanmar and Gwadar using conventional SLCMs, that is a large cost for China to consider before undertaking adventures in the NE. This should be coupled with preparations to cause unacceptable losses to any Chinese forces on their side of the border in the event of such hostilities.

Again, the lesson is that conventional parity is today the way to avoid getting to nuclear MAD,as the Pakis have also demonstrated. So conventional uses of Arihant must be fully exploited instead of going into role-playing based on the Cold War.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jul 2009 07:33

Just to butt... INS Arihant pitted against China is a wrong strategy for now, as we still need pakis as guinie pigs for many more versions and NFU supporting platforms become reality in terms of real strike capabilities.

imho, there are many things that needs to be done, especially K15 range., and plus plus the never ending madening requests of testing all again to prove the thermos .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2009 08:15

I think people are taking this "direct command of PMO" the wrong way. every
country with nuclear weapons authorizes their release only on secret code signed off by the highest authority. in that sense every strategic missile silo and SSBN lurking around is under direct command of their national leader.

where the submarine operates, speed, etc is under the navy and the crew. PMO
would have no clue to make statements like where to patrol and where to hide.

also, should we ever decide to unleash a full conventional SLCM salvo on any
country, that again has to come down from PMO. Its a major escalation to
respond to a attack on northern front by kicking down their backdoor and setting
fire to their house....esp wrt to the 100s of juicy flameable targets in PRC. imagine how long and hard a plastics megafactory will burn?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2009 08:48

Interview Russian diplomat Vyacheslav Trubnikov

So we take each other for granted?

I watched the launch of India’s first nuclear submarine at Vishakapatnam on July 26, and do you know about the design of this submarine? It is the Akula (the Russian submarine).

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 08:55

joining late

going back TN and Karela discussions

N guru thinke LNW is possible and also assumes (IIANW) FU (to selectively target some door and window pannels of ISI airconditioned buildings to make them naturally aspirated ( or shall we say natural aspirations).

where as
Arun garu says there is no suchthing as LNW when you want to hit them with the bada danda like Shake Callin Al Bin Powell (overwhelming force doctrine).

Now addressing the role of the new machali

in the begining till the school of fish beomes big

it will be ARI HUNT, that is hunt the enemy

Once the real Sagarika or Anamika with TN becomes viable

Then it will be ARI HANT.

I still feel we need land based ICBM of range 8000 miles for complete Intercontinetal Brotherhood of Mankind.

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Jul 2009 09:19

The moot question about Arihant is not what exactly it can do but how it can be deployed, for example what is the best way of using the phenomenal 'stay under water' without detection capability ? In what ways can Arihant be used in a threat scenario vs Pakistan ? How effective is Arihant or its class as a deterrent against China ? If it is deterrence how soon and what will be a sufficient or a credible deterrent vs china ? If we 'say' to PK that Arihant not directed at you what kind of policy statement would that be ? Building a credible underwater nuclear force is not enough , there should a whole set of policy decisions on how it can be or should be used., that in itself would a deterrent to a potential aggressor.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 31 Jul 2009 09:28

kit, I agree with your initial stand that Arihant should most definitely be activated for a devastating second strike only, which would mean a strategic role and not a tactical one.

The Arihant is basically invisible to the enemy in war. When it strikes no enemy should remember what hit them. Kind of .... akin to .... last line of defence philosophy.

Thats why MMS clarified openly that it is only a defensive weapon during his address to the media .... Arihant is designed to ensure the ultimate survival of india when all is lost.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jul 2009 09:34

Austin, can you clarify your last post please. Do you mean to say that INS Arihant is Akula no. 1 being paid for by the increase in the Gorky price?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2009 09:46

That is what the Russian Ambassador says in the interview I have posted above

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 09:48

The Russian diplomat is just confirming that the design was Akula based. Nothing quid pro quid wrt Groshkov. The price of that boats is escalating because of two reasons from my iunderstanding after reading the interview. 1) Dollar fluctuations 2) Requirements (IN) creep.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 31 Jul 2009 09:52

Austin wrote:Russian diplomat,Vyacheslav Trubnikov

So we take each other for granted?

I watched the launch of India’s first nuclear submarine at Vishakapatnam on July 26, and do you know about the design of this submarine? It is the Akula (the Russian submarine).

If it was a Akula replica either party would not have any obligations in agreeing on the same.
Like the russian ambassadors many points, it should not be taken at a face value, He perhaps wanted to say the influence of modern Russian design in it. Let the pictures arrive i say.

If its akula, it cant get any better though.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Jul 2009 10:02

narayanan wrote:
So this does not appear to be a reasonable use of scarce resources.

Is India unacceptably unsafe and in Clear, Present/ Imminent Danger without the MCD of SLBMs?

Well... I would find that very hard to explain to a nation that does not even believe in tying seat-belts and happily goes around on bicycles without helmets. Bhavitavyam Bhavet Eva etc. From the gentle pace of this project I would not believe that MCD is such an urgent driver - 3 years of sea-trials before commissioning?

I think a nuclear submarine is a very potent, multipurpose weapon system, and apparently that is the way the Indian defence department describes it, going by that "Restricted" PPT slide that Kanson posted (Alloo Kanson, do we all have to be killed now?) I posted the relevant sentence from that. "conventional" and "patrol".

Narayanan: Agree with you on the multi-purpose use of submarines, but with a slight twist. Load-up ALL our subs (nuke & non-nuke) with nuke-tipped LACMs. Your argument of "difficult to locate 2n subs" will work in favor of this proposal. However, make an exception in the case of the SSBNs - they will never be used in a conventional conflict. That is: all subs are multi-purpose, except the SSBNs. While the idea of loading a nuke-tipped LACM on a conventional sub might sound crazy, this only increases our deterrence by making the job of the enemy more difficult. In fact, if I were Pakistan that's exactly what I would do (load Babur onto Agosta) rather than compete with India in building a nuke sub.

As regards your point of wasting valuable resources: its a necessary sacrifice. Just like the nuke weapon designers who have PhDs but whose products will never be used. I cant imagine why we would risk a multi-billion dollar SSBN in a conventional conflict. The multi-purpose SSNs or SSKs can do the job.

I think the argument about investing in conventional versus nuke is a bread versus cake type argument. We need both. And our disparity vis-a-vis China regarding conventional weapons is not because the resources have gone into nukes but due to other reasons.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Jul 2009 10:09

Austin wrote:
It is not less easier or harder to fit Brahmos on Russian submarine or any western submarine once the sub launch variant is tested , any submarine will need a VLS Tube to launch Brahmos.

Russian currently does not have any operational conventional submarine with VLS or Brahmos , The Amur 1950 plus they are proposing are just on paper , the lada they are currently operationalising does not have VLS or Fuel Cell.

Are you sure about the part that I highlighted above? Plz see page 3 in the link below. Even though it mentions the Amur class sub, it quote Pillai as saying that both tube & vertical launch Brahmos might be fitted. Also, I remember reading somewhere that some IN ships have inclined launch Brahmos. So, its possible that there is a torpedo tube launched Brahmos in the works.

http://www.drdo.org/dpi/India_Strategic170709-2.pdf

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Jul 2009 10:26

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/j ... _1_n.shtml

However, military officials said it would be at least two years before the vessel is commissioned. Some officials even indicated to Jane's that Arihant could ultimately be retained as a 'technology demonstrator', rather than being used as an operational strategic asset.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 31 Jul 2009 10:57

-------- Deleted ----------

I know this guy is an a@@$*^e. But all I wanted was somebody confirm or refute the ATV schematics had which was contributed by one of the readers.

Any ways please accept my sincere apologies.

--------------------------
Admin Note: Prasun 'Photo-Chor' Gupta is person non-grata on BR Forum. Pls remove any and all of his "Chori-Ka Maal" (pilfered material) from BR Discussion forum:

Thank you. -Arun_S {Admin Hat on}

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 10:58

they never tell the truth to uncle Joe and Aunty Jane.

Sagarika never existed in Aunty Janes wardrobe, till one day she found something going off....

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Jul 2009 11:21

Prasun 'Photo-Chor' Gupta is person non-grata on BR Forum. Pls remove any and all of his "Chori-Ka Maal" (pilfered material) from BR Discussion forum:

Thank you.

-Arun_S {Admin Hat on}