INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 13:33

probably need a 500 mil each to finish up and deliver.

Allah has spoken that we need these two berthed in Rambilli.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 13 Aug 2009 13:39

Doesn't TSS's article in Frontline say that it is 15 m tall?

The submarine is about 111 metres long, 11 m broad and about 15 m tall. It has a surface displacement of 6,000 tonnes.

http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20090828261702500.htm

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Aug 2009 14:27

Singha wrote:probably need a 500 mil each to finish up and deliver.

Allah has spoken that we need these two berthed in Rambilli.

To get a better picture of costs.
Belgorod was 65% ready in 2005, 8.2 billion RUR were spent by then (thats around 320 million USD), another 9.9 bln RUR (around 400 mln USD) were necessary to finish the boat as 949AM with silencing level of Borei and new electronics and missiles. The SM-346 launchers have cost Sevmash around 220 mln RUR (9 mln USD).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 14:32

Thats close to nearly ~ 800 million dollar for 949AM type

What does that "AM" designation stand for ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 14:39

$800mil and you get two of them with the leather upholstery kit and surround sound.

even more of a bargain than I thought.

compare the unit + infra cost of the piddly scorpene...

even with a 50% cost escalation to $1.2b we/d get two almost brand new boats unlike the gorshkov which saw a service and accident.

RuN could perhaps use some of the cash to complete the third one
and use it themselves.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 14:46

Singha wrote:$800mil and you get two of them with the leather upholstery kit and surround sound.

even more of a bargain than I thought.

compare the unit + infra cost of the piddly scorpene...

even with a 50% cost escalation to $1.2b we/d get two almost brand new boats unlike the gorshkov which saw a service and accident.

I thought the single Belgorod upgraded to AM standard costs ~ $800 million

Scorpene cost also includes TOT , local infra to build etc etc which probably cost more than the sub itself.

But not too sure if IN is interested in Oscar 2 type , they are probably more keen to add the Akula type , which perhaps is the need of the hour

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Aug 2009 14:52

Austin wrote:Thats close to nearly ~ 800 million dollar for 949AM type

What does that "AM" designation stand for ?

I suppose the final cost with missiles etc will be around 1 billion, but for such a boat that's fine. The two last boats were stored after hull pressure tests, so they are around 30-40% ready.
AM originally was Granit replaced with Bolid missiles and BIUS upgraded. Nowadays AM will mean Yakhont/Brahmos, new BIUS, silencing upgrade to match performance of Borei (as much possible with double propellers).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 14:54

Ok this is what I found on Oscar-2AM , the Bolid missile is a ramjet variant of Granit , tested some time in mid 80's and has a range of ~ 800 km compared to Granit's ~ 650 Km , not bad for Oscar 2 upgrade

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Aug 2009 14:55

Austin wrote: But not too sure if IN is interested in Oscar 2 type , they are probably more keen to add the Akula type , which perhaps is the need of the hour

3 Oscars in IOR will cause quite a scare

A Fleet-in-being.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 13 Aug 2009 14:56

Singha wrote:Allah has spoken that we need these two berthed in Rambilli.

And the next two birthed in Rambili.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 15:04

We may have to build our own long range cruise missile for Oscar 2 or be satisfied with ~ 300 km range Brahmos/Klub , Granit/Bolid is out of question due to MTCR

When will our cruise missile Nirbhai will see the light of the day ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Aug 2009 15:05

A question for Austin and Naik,

While a beast like Oscar should certainly be welcome and IOR would be a nice place with them prowling around, I was just wondering wouldn't a N-sub inventory which comprises one or two Akula types, 3 Arihant types, and one or two Oscars cause a logistics nightmare? Or is it that for submarines, especially from the same source we don't have the same problems that the IAF faces with so many aircraft types?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Aug 2009 15:14

amit wrote:A question for Austin and Naik,

While a beast like Oscar should certainly be welcome and IOR would be a nice place with them prowling around, I was just wondering wouldn't a N-sub inventory which comprises one or two Akula types, 3 Arihant types, and one or two Oscars cause a logistics nightmare? Or is it that for submarines, especially from the same source we don't have the same problems that the IAF faces with so many aircraft types?

Reactors, electronics and weapons on 949AM and 971I are essentially the same with slight modifications.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Aug 2009 15:20

SNaik wrote: Reactors, electronics and weapons on 949AM and 971I are essentially the same with slight modifications.

In that case as the great Sage Singha wrote it is Allah's wish that these boats find a new home in Rambili instead of rotting in the construction yards.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 15:20

amit , we were just playing a happy game scenario , The Oscar 2 is custom build only for the Russian as their prime goal is to hit US CBG and its Armada ( not real LACM types ) at standoff ranges ( atleast 500 Km ) ,one needs a matching missile and matching real time targeting system to hit a CBG which is a fast moving target , ofcourse Oscar 2 had the speed to keep with CBG.

And US CBG have known to have dissapeared in the open ocean so they do have their own tricks up their sleeve

But we do not know how sucessful were the soviet/russian Ocean Reco satellites in providing real time information of CBG to exploit the full potential of granit.

The other option and not so stealthy one was the use of ASW aircraft , which would give a resonable detection range ( ~ 300 plus km ) but will also be vulnerable to CBG Air defense.

As a last resort but with short leg the sonar can provide the initial data on target and supersonic missile can quickly catch up and on board radar of missile can do the rest.

But it all boils down to target detection and positive identification to exploit the long range of such missile , perhaps the russians have it , perhaps they dont , we dont know.

For us the additonal Akula-2 serves best because of their multipurpose nature of the task they can do , including harassing CBG

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Aug 2009 15:24

I was wondering, couldn't we configure the Oscar's to carry a large number of LACMs which could be used to pulverise, for example all the ports of Pakistan in a conventional first strike.

I don't think right at this point of time we would need to harass a CBG - in future yes but by then maybe Arihant's bigger siblings will have begun to swim?

But yes I agree Akula2 serves just fine, apart from the UN Navy ships it would be the most deadly beasts in the Indian Ocean region and would be enough to give the Dragon shivers on the thought of sneaking into the Indian Ocean.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 13 Aug 2009 15:27

I don't think right at this point of time we would need to harass a CBG - in future yes but by then maybe Arihant's bigger siblings will have begun to swim?

don't be so sure about the time line - Iraq thought so too-US is not happy with any regional power which can challenge their global military supremacy

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 15:33

There is only one country than can harass US CBG and that is Russian submarine , they have the capability , intention and most important "Ga** mein dum" to do it.

Most including China tend to back out when confronted by US , ofcourse most do not have those capability for such a task

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Aug 2009 15:41

Pakistan has only one major port. Karachi. Its port Qasim handles whatever little cargo that this poor country imports. The other two ports at Gawadar and Ormara are built / being built with chinese help as part of the string of pearls.
In the event of any tensions in the border with china, all of china's string of pearls and any naval traffic headed for china or headed out of china, specially oil, needs to be harrassed, stopped, and boarded, delayed, in some cases arrested for inadequate documentation.
The Indian Navy could easily do this, the Chinese can't do anything to prevent this in the arabian sea-indian ocean-bay of bengal.
The string of pearls need to be blockaded, with India's ambassadors in those countries telling them to evict the Chinese from those areas or that country will also be caught in the unfortunate crossfire.
The string of pearls, with some effort, can be converted into a noose of pearls around china's neck.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 15:47

the size and teeth on this thing puts the big-I in Intimidation.

armed with potentially 72 nirbhay, brahmos or shaurya missiles it can rain a hellacious amt of destruction on any target of choice and add more pain with torpedo launched missiles in the next salvo. I am sure
with a 10m tube length it can accomodate the hypersonic brahmos2
also.

all in all, a good wildcat to have on our side

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Aug 2009 16:31

Austin wrote:amit , we were just playing a happy game scenario , ......

but I thought you didn't like scenarios !!

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 13 Aug 2009 16:31

Ajatshatru wrote:Let's make Russians an offer they just cannot refuse....

and then the Russians will keep making offers we cannot refuse... neither can we accept..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2009 16:32

Guys,the Oscars as was rightly mentioned in an earlier post,was specifically built to counter US CBGs.12 Oscars were planned to dstroy the 12 US carriers.While it would be great if we could acquire these boats,sorry...brutes,it would cost us a real packet to operate them,which is why the Russians themselves have not put them back into their fleet.The Akulas are very capable subs abd have a heavy payload,quite enough for our requirements for the coming decade.We are getting a few and it would be better to have a large number of this class along with the designated numbers of the ATV/Arihant class.To operate successfully two types of nuclear subs itself is going to be quite a challenge,apart from the three lines of conventional subs (+ Foxtrots) in the future,to be joined by the fourth,the second line of conventional AIP B'mos equipped subs.If we feel the need for an SSGN to carry missiles of the Oscar class,then all we have to do is to design a stretched version of the Arihant that can carry 8-12 missiles of size of the future ICBM/naval Agni,plus around 24 TTs and tube launched missiles.Just look at Oz,they cannot even operate more than "one" sub of their 6 Collins class due to a manpower shortgage and even that broke down embarrassingly very recently! To select submariners is the most difficult task for any navy.They have to be not too large to be able to work in the confined spaces of a sub,pass stringent medical tests,possess the coolest of minds and also be psychologically sound to live for weeks and in the case of N-subs,months underwater.If we are going to operate about 30-40 subs in the future,we will need at least 60 crews,a figure anywhere between 3,000-4000 submariners at least.Remeber,that three crews have been sent to Russia for training to operate one Akula.The Arihant has yet to be commissioned and by the time she is fit for service,she will need her crews too.The logistics in setting up the infrastructure,maintenance and training facilities for such a massive operation is enormous,especially now that we also have to provide the neccessary nuclear reactor support and repair facilities for the nuclear subs coming into service.

In retrospect,it was wise of the then CNS,Adm.Ronnie Pereira,in the early '80s not to take up the Russian offer of a lease of a nuclear sub,when at the time we were just finalising the contract for acquiring and building the U-209s and were building our first Godavari FFGs.The GOI/MOD must make joining the armed forces a far more attractive proposition than what exists now,with the erosion of the status of the armed forces,by the IAS babus.All three services suffer from a shortage of officers and the technological challenge of operating sophisticated equipment today is straining even advanced developed nations.Adm.Gorshkov knew that when he said that "better is the enemy of good"!

PS:Singha,the Russinas have offered us a new DDGH stealth design of around 8,000t,which can carry upto 64 Brahmos type missiles.That would be a better way of "showing the flag" and a more cost-effective way in which too hammer the daylights out of an enemy.The ship can also carry a large amount of LR SAMs,several CIWS systems and also serve as the air-defence escorts for the three carriers that we have planned for.

PPS:FRontline has this feature on the Arihant.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 702500.htm

Some key excerpt:

The submarine is about 111 metres long, 11 m broad and about 15 m tall. It has a surface displacement of 6,000 tonnes

The K-15 missiles, developed by the DRDO, are already under production. The DRDO has test-fired them several times from submerged pontoons off the coast of Visakhapatnam. They can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. They are 10.4 metres tall and weigh 6.3 tonnes each. They have a range of 700 km. Their warheads weigh about a 1,000 kg.

Rear Admiral Michael Moraes, Flag Officer Commanding (submarines), said...It would be ideal for India to have four SSBNs and nine SSNs.

“The land-based PWR and the submarine version are on a 1:1 scale. This shore-based reactor has been running smoothly for the past three years,” said A. Moorthi, Scientific Officer, BARC.

Asked whether the Russians helped in designing and building the PWR, Kakodkar, Banerjee and Basu were emphatic that BARC developed it on its own. Banerjee said: “The Russians were consultants. The consultancy was done for the whole submarine, not for the power part alone.” Basu asserted, “Everything is totally indigenous [in this PWR]…. We developed it. It is our own reactor. We did not take it from anybody else

A Paki response to the Arihant.

To quote General Talat Masood, “acquisition of advance weapon system alone is not sufficient to protect a nation from its enemies. We have a classic example of Soviet Union and later of Yugoslavia disintegrating. Seen in this backdrop, middle level powers like Pakistan have to defend their national integrity and interests through political stability and national cohesive etc.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Aug 2009 17:11

Philip wrote:While it would be great if we could acquire these boats,sorry...brutes,it would cost us a real packet to operate them,which is why the Russians themselves have not put them back into their fleet.The Akulas are very capable subs abd have a heavy payload,quite enough for our requirements for the coming decade.

precisely, nor does any of the justifications for acquiring oscars hold up to scrutiny.

operating in china's doorstep is a still distant dream for us (as is operating in Indian waters a distant dream for them)

it is not enough to have one capable platform, that by no means is a guarantor of capability. we need to develop the entire gamut of supporting platforms, procedures honed over long periods and also relevant alliances. I don't think you can/should operate in E Asia without any support facility there.

PS:Singha,the Russinas have offered us a new DDGH stealth design of around 8,000t,which can carry upto 64 Brahmos type missiles.That would be a better way of "showing the flag" and a more cost-effective way in which too hammer the daylights out of an enemy.The ship can also carry a large amount of LR SAMs,several CIWS systems and also serve as the air-defence escorts for the three carriers that we have planned for.

which design is that ? something concrete or yet another long term dream by a RuN admiral ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2009 17:32

One report.

Russia to build new destroyer
Monday, 13 July 2009 06:15
The tender on the design of a new Russian destroyer will be announced before the end of the year.

The research and design phase of the vessel is estimated to take three years.

Russian Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky promised that the ship would commence building in 2012.

The vessel is said to have unlimited sailing properties and a speed of 30 knots. Standard displacement will be 9000 tonnes. The vessel will most likely be built at the Northern Shipyard.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 13 Aug 2009 17:43

and then the Russians will keep making offers we cannot refuse... neither can we accept

may be we should avoid playing this mind games with ruskies -they are the masters of that type of game -shankarosky

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 13 Aug 2009 18:01

Philip, Soviet Union was able to operate several hundred of subs with population of only 250 million. This is just a matter of GoI politics on military personnel recruitment, management, payment and social guarantees.
Oscar 2 can be easily adapted for land-attack purposes, just a slight mod of the FCS. Granit has a secondary land attack mode anyway. Akula is nice, but you will be limited to use of 3M-14 Club LACM.
The destroyer project will be refurbished 21956, no doubt of that, Severnoye PKB has nothing new in the pipeline.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 18:30

indeed. and the US still operating a 90+ nuclear subs on a population of 300 mil. power is not cheap - they have huge fixed investments in training facilities.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 13 Aug 2009 19:10

What is this ???

India’s nuclear sub doesn’t have working reactor yet
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 31849.html

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Aug 2009 19:32

Another DDM of the highest order.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 19:47

Rahul M wrote:
Austin wrote:amit , we were just playing a happy game scenario , ......
but I thought you didn't like scenarios !!

Bringing in some realism onleee sir

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 20:03

The Friendship Chakra

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 21:09

SanjibGhosh wrote:What is this ???

India’s nuclear sub doesn’t have working reactor yet
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 31849.html

Seems to make perfect sense.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 13 Aug 2009 21:22

You mean confuse the enemies? Absolutely makes sense.
From a threat standpoint Absolutely no sense - I hope there is gaping big hole to insert the reactor.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 21:25

PC,

I think that is the normal process.

Cutting into the sub is not a big deal. At the end of its life they have to cut it open and replace the mal and reseal.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 13 Aug 2009 21:35

I am assuming people/press who saw the sub can report draft/draught/visible waterline - this will help to help determine if the reactor is present?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 21:49

only a naval architect could make such assessments. a empty sub could fill ballast tanks some to appear low in water if chankian psyops be desired.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 13 Aug 2009 21:50

I am wondering why Arihant has only 4x3 VLS tubes if it is almost 10,000mt, is it possible that it has more tubes say 8x3?

I also wonder why Shaurya is only 10.5m tall if the sub is able to accomodate almost 13m long missile unless some space is taken by cold launch ability?

Can somebody do the honours by calculating the submerged weight of Arihant taking the profile given in pics + dimensions of 111mx15mx11m?

Is it possible that sub reactor is only 100MWt as BARC is still some way away from realising the full potential of akula 190mwt reactor whose drawing & some components may have been supplied?

If Arihant is truncated Borei or Delta class then why VLS tubes are so less unless the reports of 4x3 are understatement?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 13 Aug 2009 21:59

Can someone think through the number nuclear warheads required for Indian submarines/ships in the next 10 years? Factor in matrix of quantity for various types of credible warheads, and warheads that still need to be proven. Also factor in warheads qty in spare, servicing, contingency.

IMVHO the MIRV configuration will use a mix of credible warheads and yet to be proven warheads.

Do include BrahMos and Club missiles in the calculation (of course with a 17-20 kt FBF warhead).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2009 22:17

not a great thinker but my number:

3x arihant with 12 k-15 each (moved to brahmos when A3SL) = 36
60x Agni2AT/Agni2 on rails - 60
20x Agni-I - 20
3x arihant A3SL 4xMIRV(3) = 3 x 4 x 3 = 36
no klubs with nuke warheads

60 + 72 + 20 = 152 + 30 air delivered bombs = 182 + 50 spares = 232

what do you think? too low ?