INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

[abhiti]

They should have ordered the package immediately after signing the contract in 2005 to avoid cost escalation or have added a clause which would have said certain % of cost esclation on yearly basis , or better for MDL culture no cost escalation at all even though we order this at 2010

I hope you are joking...what you wrote is exactly backwards...a contract once signed is final and binding...french need to hedge for delays or add cost escalation clause in contract. Otherwise deliver as required if you don't want to be sued. That Russians are able to get away with blackmail doesn't mean French can as well.

[Austin]

I hope you are joking...what you wrote is exactly backwards...a contract once signed is final and binding...french need to hedge for delays or add cost escalation clause in contract. Otherwise deliver as required if you don't want to be sued. That Russians are able to get away with blackmail doesn't mean French can as well.

That depends on escalation clause , normally any sane contract will have a certain percentage of escalation clause added , I am sure the Scorpene contract must have had some clause , or else they would have created noise over it like Groshkov.

The Rs 2000 cr more is not a small amount and if GOI is going ahead without much protest means it is within the contractual agreement.

If MDL is so damn right , why dont they sue DCN in a French/Indian court .......surely they dont want to make this public as their they balls will be in dock

[Rahul M]

Now this is good:

The cost escalation is from the French side, they seemed to have learned a few lessons from their Russian friends. If you allow yourself to be screwed once, that's an invitation for others to come join the party.

Learned a few lessons from their Russian friends=France and Russia working together to "screw"us?
A very nice way to let the Ruskies take partial blame for things totaly unrelated to them.

Sort of captures things on BRF lately. Should be music for admin ears.
"thats the way aha aha I like it aha aha....."

what exactly is the chip on your shoulder ?

[Shankar]

the russian have only advertised such capability that too for Amur 950 with VLS no AIP.

They have not demonstrated any AIP capability , although they claim to have Fuel cell like capability , but unlike Western AIP based on HDW Fuel Cell or French MESMA , the Russian capability as such is not proven as its not deployed , may be they don't need such capability.

Details of Russian AIP

Russian-made submarines, equipped with the Kristall electrochemical generator AIP plant are not expected to be inferior to their foreign counterparts in performance, especially in comparison with the German Project 212 submarines and as such, there is an expectation the Russian vessels will be able to successfully compete in the international market. The Kristall-27E AIP plant, with its alkali matrix electrolyte, intermetallid storage of hydrogen, cryogenic storage of oxygen and low-temperature electrochemical generator, reportedly fully meets all requirements including those of fire/detonation safety, and is claimed to be superior to the AIP system of Project 212 submarines,
surpassing these in terms of fuel efficiency. These Russian submarines are likewise more advanced, in that, shore-based support facilities are already a functional reality, with a number of these units already existing and operational; these are again reportedly available as dedicated autonomous shore-based refueling complexes.

Although the shore-based refueling complex is not considered an integral component of the AIP system, it can be supplied to a client as an option: this optional feature contributes to the attractiveness of the Russian project vessels. Customers can be supplied, as a single package, an autonomous refueling complex able to provide hydrogen and oxygen for the submarine's AIP system. As the characteristics of the second-generation air-independent propulsion systems based on these electrochemical generators are claimed to have not yet reached the limit of their development, there is believed considerable scope for improvement, although this improvement is believed to be mainly related to a refinement of the organization of the hydrogen storage and associated feed system, within the submarine.

Within the AIP system development concept, evolved by SKBK, third-generation shipborn AIP systems are believed to be undergoing development. These are expected to enter service with conventional submarines after the year 2010.

Under normal circumstances, equipping non-nuclear submarines with AIP systems increases their costs due to the following factors:
· the cost of power plant's pilot (series) production model can account for approximately 15-20 percent of the total submarine's cost;
· requisite R&D and engineering costs also increase a submarine's price tag.

As has been identified in the existing literature on the subject, the operation of submarines equipped with AIP systems, in conjunction with diesel-electric submarines is cost-effective, because the total number of submarines can be reduced owing to the considerably enhanced combat efficiency of the fleet. FRG projections result in the expectation of an ability to replace 18 diesel-electric submarines of Project 206/206A with 4 Project 212 boats, equipped with AIP systems, based on electrochemical generators. Although this is a practical peace time policy, a more forward thinking policy is that IHD-AIP submarines can be more readily integrated into existing submarine fleets and rather than replace the existing units, the existing units can be re-powered as IHD-AIP units and held in reserve as either training units or for times of need.

With regards current Russian AIP submarines fitted with first or second generation AIP systems, these powering systems are believed to be limited to functioning as secondary powerplants, operating as the power source at economic speeds and basically functioning as a means of providing increased submerged range and duration of submerged operation. They are claimed to improve submerged endurance of a submarine by approximately 10-15 days. It is expected the third generation AIP plant, currently under development, will allow production of a functional single power source AIP submarine, with the AIP system providing both underwater and surface propulsion, as well as auxiliary power. This would appear consistent with the projected mode of operation of the Kockums submarines, with further development of their Sterling cycle AIP system.

It is expected, the third-generation Russian AIP systems will increase underwater endurance of non-nuclear submarines to some 60-90 days and provide operational characteristics more consistent with nuclear powered submarines. It is not expected, however, that submarines optimized with these third generation AIP systems will enter service prior to 2010.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/kr ... 50360.html

[Austin]

Shankar , I have read those stuff before , My point is

1 ) Kristall AIP is not operationally deployed on any Russian submarine , its still an R&D effort , opting for Kristall will mean all the operational challenges are IN headache , since those are not known and rectified on Russian submarine.

2 ) MESMA and German Fuel cell are operationally deployed and even with all their shortcoming they are very mature than any thing Russia can offer

3 ) Even the first of the lada SSK still on trials have faced major problem with their BIUS and even after ~ 5 years they are on trials with 2010 being touted as expected operational date.

4 ) Logistically again opting for a Russian submarine does not make sense , Conventional submarine technology wheather you buy from Russia , France , Germany are matured and broadly offer the same capability ,so opting for another type for 2nd line means adding to logistics headache , Amur is a capable submarine but what is the logistics advantage for IN ?

5 ) Now the IN plan to build a third type (!) based on 1 and 2nd line , so are we going to operate 3 types of 4th gen SSK ? ( sounds crazy , but with IN any thing is possible )

IMHO the way ahead should be

a ) Go for an larger Scorpene derivative for P-75I with AIP ( German FuelCell/MESMA or DRDO developed one ) , with TT Missile capability and larger payload capability to fire either Klub or Indian Cruise Missile ( 1000 km plus range ) now in development.

b ) For the 3rd type of 12 SSK , let the Indian Design bureau take consulting from Rubin and/or DCN ( heck with only consulting from Russia we could build a million time complicated project like Nuclear submarine that too SSBN (!( , whats a conventional submarine after all ) and build an Indian submarine with maximum common logistics with P-75/75I and with Indian Fuel Cell AIP , Weapons ( both now under development ) and VLS capability if that is possible as well.

This way we stream line the logistics for both Submarine spares/weapons and shore based logistics and for the next 30 years we operate at best one Phoren design and one Indian design type.

I personally do not see any advantage in opting for a Amur based derivative for P-75I

[Shankar]

Russian-made submarines, equipped with the Kristall electrochemical generator AIP plant are not expected to be inferior to their foreign counterparts in performance, especially in comparison with the German Project 212 submarines and as such, there is an expectation the Russian vessels will be able to successfully compete in the international market. The Kristall-27E AIP plant, with its alkali matrix electrolyte, intermetallid storage of hydrogen, cryogenic storage of oxygen and low-temperature electrochemical generator, reportedly fully meets all requirements including those of fire/detonation safety, and is claimed to be superior to the AIP system of Project 212 submarines,

Agreed Austin U212 type is most proven but two factors dominate the selection when it comes to AIP

First the noise and then safety of hydrogen/methanol storage on board

Oxygen is always stored in liquid form at just over -196 degree c depending on storage pressure of the LOX tank on board

Methanol based AIP as in scorpene uses a high pressure combustor and the combustion products are discharged out side - a potential noise source-may be not as much a kilo snorkelling but still

Hydrogen fuel cell type as in german/russian type are much more silent that way

HDW design uses I think high pressure hydrogen gas bottles for storage of the hydrogen gas which has several disadvantage

- inherent risk of high pressure fuel gas release at around 300 bar within close confines of submarine
- weight penalty associated with high pressure gas bottles -the weight of gas bottles is more thsn weight of gas by about 11 times in case of hydrogen

Russian design uses metal hydride -the hydrogen gas is stored as an unstable chemical compond under moderate pressure and when pressure is released -the gas comes out slowly and burns in the electrochemical generator producing water and propulsive power

Any way since all details about either russian or hdw is not available we need to let it go at this point -if i come across something new shall post

[Austin]

Well shankar , I would be impressed if Russians managed to put those Fuel Cell AIP on some submarine ( even if it was Kilo ) and ran it for some years , this removes any operational bugs in the system and fine tunes it and the end customer is less edgy compared to using R&D product or be the first to use it.

Else what is superior , what is inferior can be a matter of academic discussion.

If nothing else is available , they can opt for MESMA and look at way to minimise noise ,while DRDO efforts succeeds in developing AIP

[Shankar]

The greatest challenge for fuel-cell AIP systems lies in storing the reactants. Although oxygen can be handled with relative safety as LOX, storing hydrogen onboard as a liquid or high-pressure gas is very dangerous. One solution is to carry the hydrogen in metal hydride accumulators, at low pressure and ambient sea temperature. (A metal hydride is a solid compound of hydrogen and metallic alloy, in which individual hydrogen atoms occupy interstitial positions in the host metal's crystalline lattice. By manipulating temperature and pressure, hydrogen gas can be absorbed or released at will.) Another, less efficient, approach is to generate gaseous hydrogen from a stored liquid hydrocarbon such as diesel fuel, kerosene, or methanol. This requires an auxiliary device called a "reformer," in which a mixture of hydrocarbon and water is vaporized and superheated under pressure to yield a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxid

everal manufacturers are currently offering fuel cell systems for submarine AIP. Prominent among these is the German Siemens firm, which is collaborating with Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft (HDW) and Italy's Fincantieri to supply fuel cell installations for the forthcoming 1,840-ton German and Italian U 212-class submarines. These will consist of nine PEM fuel-cell modules each nominally rated at 34 kilowatts, to yield a total of approximately 300 kilowatts (400 horsepower). With metal-hydride hydrogen storage, the system is predicted to yield 14 days submerged endurance and the ability to run up to eight knots on the fuel cells alone. Siemens is working on a next-generation PEM module rated at 120 kilowatts, and two of these will be incorporated into HDW's 1,860-ton U 214 boats, planned as export successors to the U 212 series. Other nations, such as Russia and Canada - the latter with significant under-ice requirements - are also considering fuel-cell modules for either new construction or for upgrading older boats.
the maximum power output of current AIP installations is typically on the order of 400 horsepower (300 kilowatts). In comparison, the conventional diesel-electric plant of the U 212 class described above is rated at over 3,000 horsepower, and a typical nuclear submarine propulsion plant produces over 20,000. Since the power required to propel a submerged body varies with the cube of its velocity, it should be apparent that at least for the near future, AIP will be valuable primarily as a low-speed, long-endurance adjunct to the under- water performance of conventional submarines. There is little short-term prospect for AIP to become a primary, full-performance alternative to either diesel or nuclear power. Even the phrase "closed cycle" is something of a misnomer, because except for fuel cells, all AIP alternatives require ejecting exhaust gases overboard, which limits both depth capability and stealth

[Philip]

Reg. "point 4",I have a bone to pick with Austin's fine analysis.There is a considerable tech difference and capability between the various conventional sub builders,even those in the west.Take the Collins class,a failure because Oz wanted to soup it up beyond its original design paramaters.The Gotland on the other hand,with AIP is causing the USN considerable embarrassment.The German U-209 series was a very successful one and has been enlarged into the U-212 and U-214 series,with AIP,but still has some problems with Greece refusing to accept their first U-214.French,German and Swedisn subs all have different AIP systems,(MESMA,Fuel-cell and Stirling respectively).Russia do not build AIP subs for them selves because they require nculear subs for their global scale of operations.In the confined waters of the Baltic,Black Sea and elswhere,their small number of conventional subs are good enough for their coastal and brown water defence.These subs have also been built for their traditional markets like India,and many other developing nations,plus former allies of the Warsaw Pact.Russia expects to export 30-40 new conventional subs in the coming decades to countries like Vietnam (6 Kilos ordered),Indonesia,Venezuela,India (Amur AIP+ Brahmos or a joint Russo-Italian design).Their subs are generally double-hulled,which make them slightly larger but quieter and able to absorb more battle damage than single-hulled western subs.The Amur design ,single-hulled,is to be able to competre both cost and capability wise with recent western designs.India and Russia have reportedly agreed upon a list of 7 countries to which Brahmos can be exported and once started,will surely also feature sub-launched versions too.Britain and Italy also have the capability to build conventional subs,but Britain have decided to operate only nuclear subs.Oz (Collins),Korea (German U-boats) and Japan also design and build subs,the Japanese have their own desgns.

Now Oz from operating their Collins class in the IOR and Far Eastern waters,have realised that a new larger more capable conventional sub is required,one that will not need to return to base after a month's patrol,but perhaps with capability of double that patrol period.The subs will have to have some kind of AIP,plus a larger weaponload,which already exists on the Collins.Using conventional subs for both anti-ship,ASW and land attack in a true multi-role capability is the need for all future conventional sub designs.Not all nations can affford only nuclear powered subs.So it is with India too.Brahmos is a great force-multiplier and the IN already has reservations about exports of it because it gives us a huge advantage when compared with many other navies.Being of Indo-Russian collaboration,it is logical that when the missile is fitted aboard our next series of conventional designs,a Russian design would be preferrable for obvious reasons.

As for operating several types,there should not be too much of a logistic problem as we already operate two Russian conventional types,Kilo and Foxtrot,German U-209 tech and in the future Franch Scorpenes,apart from our desi ATV and the Russian Akula-2s.The new Brahmos equipped Russian sub could begin to replace our older Kilos and obsolete Foxtrots,new German U-boats to complement and replace the U-209s when their sell-by dates arrive,and the Scorpene.That would still give us just three main types eventually (Scorpene,U-214 and Amur/Russo-Ital design).If you look at China,there are at least 4 different conventional types which they are operating,plus their 3 nuclear sub designs.Once we've studied/operate the three major types of fuel-cell tech,we can then decide upon the right size and tech for a single design/or just two,to replace the lot with.AThis is apart from our N-subs of the ATV and Akula-2s.The two N-sub designs obviously have a lot in common,especially weaponry,sensors and other equipment.

The IN needs a swift decision to build another line of AIP subs with Brahmos in VLS silos.It should go the fuel-cell route for this line,as later Scorpenes will have MESMA.We should AVOID another French design/development,because Pak operates FRench Agostas and MESMA,plus are also trying to acquire new design French subs because of German reluctance to sell them U-boats and that they have a sophisticated sub-building facility at Karachi,entiely French.Another reason why pak wants a fuel-cell design,is becaus either Godfathers,the Chinese want to acquire by theft of both MESMA and German fuel-cell tech. for their sub-building projects! Pak has notoriously in the past passed on a variety of western tech to China,which rewarded it with missile and N-warhead tech!

[Austin]

Philip , in these days and times which is like after ~ 3 decades after Kilo and U-209 became operational with IN , the world has move ahead.

You take Scorpene , U-212 or Lada they all offer broadly the same capability , whether its Sensors/Sonars , Command and Control , Weapons they are all top class.

Though a small difference may exist in some domain but they are not much of tactical significance , this is simply because the submarine technology have matured after 3 decades and there is no Killer advantage of selecting one over the other.

Taking Collins as an example and making a point is not fair , they choose this nearly 2 decades earlier and it was a risk they accepted to custom built a large submarine , certainly risk has its pit falls as Australian have realized it.

If IN is indeed interested in VLS brahmos , I see no reason why they cant integrate with any submarine that we buy , its like saying if we choose Rafale for MMRCA the russians will deny us integrating Brahmos , why should they ?

We are 51 % stake holders and any sale of Brahmos means money to make for them as well .

So the argument that Brahmos only if Amur is choosen is not correct and something I do not agree with.

Now just because in mid 80's we choose to opt for Kilo and U-209 ( thats because the Soviet offered it virtually free , and the political compulsion of opting for one Soviet class was there ) does not mean that we should repeat the same mistake again.

Its a logistics nightmare for any navy to operate 2 class of submarine , let alone operating from East and West , they do not mix and match and needs its own supply chain for spares , training , weapons and shore facility.

Beyond a certain point operating a large conventional submarine with AIP plus VLS leads to submarine of large displacement , and the law of diminishing returns comes to haunt , it makes more sense to operate a nuclear submarine , which offers unlimited speed and endurance , at ~ 4000 T submarine we better go the nuclear route.

For countries who do not have the technology or internal opposition to Nuclear option ( like Australia ) they have no choice but to opt for large conventional submarine.

So I tend to believe the IN has chosen for AIP over VLS for P-75I ( F mag interview ) , they probably have weighed the pro and cons and a TT cruise missile is a better option.

The bottom line is logistics matters whether its spares , weapons , training ,shore based facility or AIP the greater commonality the better it helps in stream lining your logistics.

We can opt for Rubin consulting for the next 12 class of submarine by opting for a modified Amur or Indian design and go for a block upgrade options or better go for a 4000T nuclear submarine

[nikhil_p]

How possible is it that along with the ATV project we also have a project for a DE sub?
I mean, If we could fabricate a hull, do the designing for a NewClear submarine...why not a Diesel electric sub?


Any paanwala information...anyone?

[a_kumar]

I have been looking for some reference for ATV's timeline. Can't find a compilation anywhere (even on BR). Closest I find is Prasun's blog. Is there another reference?

[udy]

Forgot to post this while making the DMRL single crystal patent post.
From Nuclear India Sept-oct 2008 (Page 13)

Great strides have been made in
development of advanced gas
centrifuges for uranium enrichment
program. The latest fourth generation
design, with output 10 times the early
design, has been successfully
developed and an experimental
cascade is in operation at BARC.
These would soon be ready for
induction at RMP. Third generation
design, with 5 times output of early
designs, are presently being inducted
atRMP.

An important milestone in
development of carbon fibre
composit tubes for high speed rotor
system, has achieved a surface speed
of 600 m/sec. These rotors have the
potential to provide greatly enhanced
centrifuge output. These rotor
systems are presently undergoing
various trials.

Closed Cycle Thermal Systems
(CCTS) technology for under water
propulsion, involving key
components viz., compact boiler
reactor, submerged gas injection &
trigger system with power density of
about 20 kW/lit of reactor volume,
has been successfully demonstrated
for specified power level. The
development was done under an
MoU between BARC, Mumbai &
Naval Science & Technology
Laboratory, DRDO, Visakhapatnam.
The technology is ready for further
development required for integration
with other sub-systems, packaging
and deployment.

Can some guru decode the last para for the non science folks.

[pralay]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 946064.cms

Yes my point is when the price was x in 2005 , why did it take such a long time for MDL to fabricate the hull and then procure MPM package , obviously they took their sweet time to construct the hull and then expected that when they order the MPM packages in 2009 they will get at 2005 prices since the contract was signed then.

They should have ordered the package immediately after signing the contract in 2005 to avoid cost escalation or have added a clause which would have said certain % of cost esclation on yearly basis , or better for MDL culture no cost escalation at all even though we order this at 2010

Did the french meant to build all subs in the year 2005 only ?
Will the price increase/negotiated again for remaining subs?

[Philip]

In littoral warfare,the conventioanl diesel subs have as shown in the US,with Swedish Gotland subs,how difficult they are to detect.Given the kind of continental shelf that we have and temperature differentials experienced,conventional AIP subs will be more effective in brown water ops than nuclear subs.However,given the small size of most western subs,in open ocean warfare they have serious limitations,with patrols usually not exceding 30 days.Their payload is limited and with the advent of land attack missiles,subs are becoming a most useful means of stealthily attacking land targets from the sea.The OZ navy have found that even their Collins class,which is larger than usual,is too small for their need and an AIP sub that can patrol for 50-60 days,plus a weaponload of around 24 missiles and torpedoes is required.Another requirement these days is the ability of the sub to carry a UUV for recce and anti-mine roles.

A Brahmos Amur designed and shown by Rubin,of around 1650-2000t,can carry 8 Brahmos missiles,plus an assortment of around 18 Klubs and torpedoes.Equipped also with AIP,the sub would be very capable at affordable cost,as an Amur (single-hulled) is supposed to be far cheaper than a Kilo.We also need to experience both fuel-cell AIP subs as well as Scorpenes with MESMA.MESMA and Fuel-cell subs have their own advantages and disadvantages.There are numerous articles and papers on the subject.Once we've operated both types,we could decide upon the type of AIP preferable to us for our conventional sub lines and design future subs ourselves/JVs, with the experience gained.We are going to have two basic nculear sub classes,ATV and Akula,both of which will have definite similarities with internal eqpt.,as a common training regime has been established for both subs (300+ submariners trained in Russia for both Arihant and Akula-2s,first one to also be used for training the ATV crews).

We will probably need two types of conventional AIP subs,one small hunter-killer sub to seek out and eliminate Paki subs and a larger open ocean design for both littoral and open ocean warfare.These subs,like the Amur+ Brahmos design,could be used for the land attack role as well.The Paki conversion of their anti-ship Harpoons for land attack indicates to us the manner in which they will use these missiles in the future,some even with N-warheads as a very cost-effective way in which they can achieve their sub-based nuclear deterrent at very low costs! They have only India as their mortal enemy and require (unlike India) no sub with ICBM missiles as we need for deterrence against China.The Scorpene design,as Igorr has earlier pointed out,is too small and cannot be modified for carrying Brahmos.It should be used for hunting down Pak's Agostas,but these also will require MESMA,which Pak also possesses,thereby my strong suggestion that we acquire U-214s,upgrade and modify our U-209s ,to keep them servicable upto 2025,acquire Brahmos AIP Amurs,using either the Russian fuel-cell or the German one as we would be acquiring that design for the U-209s/U-214s.Two kinds of AIP subs with three classes,ideal for our current and future needs.

[Austin]

Philip , Please tell us which country maintains 2 types of new generation submarine , not to mention 3 types.

All the Russian Amur with AIP and Brahmos are hot gas , they dont have any operationally deployed AIP on any submarine , and the Brahmos on Amur is a paper/CGI nothing more.

Scorpene design is a robust design and can be extended , Spanish S80 is a good example to emulate.
Western AIP whether MESMA or German Fuel Cells are deployed and extensively tested on submarine and are very mature system.

This whole idea of East plus West submarine is a great thing is flawed , we maintained 2 subs coz one we bought it from West , one we go nearly free from SU.

Its a logistical nightmare to maintain two types not to mention 3 types.

I sincerely believe a block upgrade path is the best way for us capability and indigenous development

[Cain Marko]

You take Scorpene , U-212 or Lada they all offer broadly the same capability , whether its Sensors/Sonars , Command and Control , Weapons they are all top class.

If IN is indeed interested in VLS brahmos , I see no reason why they cant integrate with any submarine that we buy , its like saying if we choose Rafale for MMRCA the russians will deny us integrating Brahmos , why should they ?We are 51 % stake holders and any sale of Brahmos means money to make for them as well .

Now just because in mid 80's we choose to opt for Kilo and U-209 ( thats because the Soviet offered it virtually free , and the political compulsion of opting for one Soviet class was there ) does not mean that we should repeat the same mistake again.

Its a logistics nightmare for any navy to operate 2 class of submarine , let alone operating from East and West , they do not mix and match and needs its own supply chain for spares , training , weapons and shore facility.

Beyond a certain point operating a large conventional submarine with AIP plus VLS leads to submarine of large displacement , and the law of diminishing returns comes to haunt , it makes more sense to operate a nuclear submarine , which offers unlimited speed and endurance , at ~ 4000 T submarine we better go the nuclear route.

Agreed for the most part. Thing is IF the MRCA goes to France, expect two sub lines - Amur for the P75. If it does not, what you say is definitely possible. I don't see the point of 2 different sub lines either - just tinker with the scorpene to include VLS brahmos, should be enough. Esp. with increasing emphasis on nuke propulsion.
CM

[Austin]

I really see no reason why MMRCA going any where should affect how a decision should be made on submarine purchase , which stands on its own merit.

I sincerely hope that Mig-35 wins the MMRCA race , because it stands on its own merit logistics , capability , TOT and cost effectiveness.

I do not want my country to spend any more than what is absolutely required for MMRCA tamasha , spending 10 plus billion dollar on a 100 million per aircraft , is something that this country cannot afford , specially with so much of poverty and other issues in this country that remains to be solved

[Cain Marko]

I really see no reason why MMRCA going any where should affect how a decision should be made on submarine purchase , which stands on its own merit.

Probly not. But possibly yes esp. if the decisions coincide in time, geopolitics and all.

CM

[Raveen]

I do not want my country to spend any more than what is absolutely required for MMRCA tamasha , spending 10 plus billion dollar on a 100 million per aircraft , is something that this country cannot afford , specially with so much of poverty and other issues in this country that remains to be solved

Really?
you might wanna say that to the Chinese communist overlord when China kicks our butt because we as Indians are always looking for a value proposition even when we should be looking for the best for the brightest and the bravest from our nation...sorry mate, your logic of we cant afford $100 mn/aircraft doesnt go down to well with me...if the F-22 was on offer, and the AF thought we needed it, then damn it...buy those too...even it is is $500 mn/aircraft
You cant rid your nation of issues and problems that exist now when your nation does not exist in the future
Jai Hind!

[wig]

this is offtrack but still vital.
with regards to weapons systems we need to equip our forces with the very best equipment/ weapons wise, be it a submarine, airplane or rifle. and the numbers need to be adequate to cover for losses in war and deter potential enemies from misadventures.
the sums spent on equipment during war is but a fraction of the moneys spent for defence routinely.
regarding poverty and other issues they are not going to be solved by cutting on expenses on war materiel.
to tackle poverty and other issues referred to by esteemed posters on this forum i can only say that we have to face up squarely to corruption. the system grows fat on corruption diverting crores and crores into the pockets of ill meaning officials, politicians and it even drives western economies. In 1991 a scheme of GOI to bring in foreign currency (amnesty) for 90 days resulted in pre euro currencies getting destablised. ( i think due to massive flows of funds from abroad) back then it was a far smaller indian economy!

[Austin]

Really?
You cant rid your nation of issues and problems that exist now when your nation does not exist in the future
Jai Hind!

Sure you are right , but if only arms made a nation strong then we are far far stronger than our 7 times smaller neighbour , but we still take the most punch from them and pussy foot when the time comes.

More than arms , we need the will and the balls to fight.

If you can import "balls and will" , I am all for $ 100 billion RFP

[Cain Marko]

If you can import "balls and will" , I am all for $ 100 billion RFP

Hilarious!
CM

[Patrick Cusack]

Generals are visiting China - wonder India has to keep up the charade when they CANNOT and will not EVER trust China.

[Raveen]

Really?
You cant rid your nation of issues and problems that exist now when your nation does not exist in the future
Jai Hind!

Sure you are right , but if only arms made a nation strong then we are far far stronger than our 7 times smaller neighbour , but we still take the most punch from them and pussy foot when the time comes.

More than arms , we need the will and the balls to fight.

If you can import "balls and will" , I am all for $ 100 billion RFP

Agreed, but the balls and will go hand in hand (sorry, just realized...I did not mean to say balls and hand in the same sentence...lol) with real capabilities on the ground, and those depend upon the very war machines we buy...therefore, buy what you need and the very best irrespective of how much

for every 10 fold increase in capability (based on weapons we buy) our netas will get one ball...I say spend away, moreover, the less money we have left over after buying the weapons, the less they can stuff into their pockets

[Philip]

Austin,it is the weaponry that is carried aboard a sub that matters and if we harp on only western conventional subs,we will never get to have Brahmos our most lethal force multiplier in service on a conventional sub.It is almost an impossibility that Russia-co-partner, will allow us to fit the missile aboard any western sub unless there is a huge military and commercial advantage for it in the deal.Moreover,the missile is too large for the Scorpene and U-boast designs,which will have to be extensively redesigned,actually neccessitating a whole new sub design.We are going to be both outnumbered and outgunned by the Sino-Pak combine if we don't augment our sub capability extensively and the only way to do that is to exercise all options.Fom 2020,we can eliminate one class,the Kilos (by Brahmos Russian subs),which will be quite long in the tooth by then and have as we have right now,three classes in service.From 2020-2025,we should choose between MESMA or fuel-cell AIP for a future class to replace the old U-209s too,either a follow on to the Scorpene or the newer German U-boat designs.This way we can then gradually narrow down both classes and technology for our conventional sub fleet leading to our own future sub design.I had a chat with a knowledgable one recently who explained the technicalities and hazards fof designing and building up our own sub tech with the ATV.We still have a long way to go.

[Sumit A]

talking about price escalation its neither france nor russia's fault. fault lies within us. we give them the chance to screw us and then we cry. why did MDL take so long?????????? when it did not have expertise, there was no need to have the first sub built in india instead we could have had first sub built in france in presence of our technician.

when we can build a nuclear sub then why do we run from country to country for conventional subs.??? why can't we have our own R&D??
its problem with the mentally sick babus who take decades to finalise a single deal. and with the present senario don't expect any good.

[Austin]

Indian Navy crew to join Russian sub sea trials in Far East

VLADIVOSTOK, September 4 (RIA Novosti) - A crew of Indian submariners will take part in sea trials of a Russian nuclear submarine in mid-September, a source involved in the trials said on Friday.

The submarine is to be leased to the Indian Navy by the end of 2009 under the name INS Chakra.

The source said the Indian submariners would need to undergo a course of training together with Russian specialists and servicemen.

They will subsequently operate on their own under the supervision of Russian instructors.

[Austin]

Excellent write up on ATV and its future by ex Admiral Arun Prakash , Subtly hints the SLBM warhead will needs hot testing

Admiral Prakash on ATV

[Patrick Cusack]

Based on Admiral Prakash's comments

S-2 sounds useless from a weapon standpoint because fueling issues will prevent it from extreme long voyages.
Why build one in the first place - such a waste of money. I hope this is not true.....

[Austin]

There is a steep learning curve and S-2 is precious , some one has to do that. The S-3 and S-4 will be production examples of S-2 and will greatly learn from it.

Arun Prakash perhaps knows more about ATV then any body from the current lot ,since he has chosen to speak about it we know where we stand now and what challenges lies ahead.

He clearly stress 3 things , Indian Naval Reactor with long refulling life and 200 MW(t) capacity , Long range SLBM with 4 -6 MIRV , and new gen of TN warhead which needs to be hot tested.

[Jonathan Allen]

It appears, the Arihant is more likely to serve as a Technology Demonstrator/Test Platform, than an actual weapons platform. Allthough, it could be risked as a weapons platform in case of emergencies. It could be used for validating various subsystems, test platforms for new SLBM's.. At best, it may be a filler until the real boomers / hunter killers arrive.

This is a start and hopefully the Nuke submarine program continues to move forward quickly to enable India to realise a real 'weapons platform' with the follow on boats sooner than later.

[Philip]

Austin,the PLAN operates (64+ subs) two new conventional indigenous designs,Song and Yuan,plus operates Russian Kilo 636's and earlier classes of diesel subs.In addition,they operate two new SSBN and SSGN classes,with their existing N-boats.I agree it's not the ideal operational style,but they are able to do so.In time,they will retire older classes and reduce the number of types in their sub inventory.I am sure that the IN has the ability to organise itself far more effectively especially as two types,German and French are western where spares and related support are perhaps easier to maintain than older Russian subs.

The ATV feature of the "F" mag is very extensive.The good admiral's piece very illuminative.From the vast amount of info available a few points stand out.One,that the major part of the sub's components were designed by the Russians who provided the engineering drawings,assisted in the most crucial welding stages,and are to further provide designs for "underwater sub bases",sub pens,n-warhead storage,etc.,etc.A former naval officer has drawn a sketch of the boat which shows a 6 tube (21") arrangement in the bows,probably one similar to that aboard our Kilos.The sonar shown in a pic is a cylindrical one,not spherical.Another mention is that a fin mounted sonar will be later fitted onto the sub,probably of the type on the Akulas and the screw will be shrouded.Israel will supply a Python variant for underwater launch from a 50' depth,to destroy ASW helos,the missile to have a range of upto 12km.Another important point,that the K-15 has as suspected,a greater range of "700-1000km" mentioned.

It is also clear that it will take a few years before we have a credible survivable strategic deterrent aboard any of our Arihant-1 class subs.It is only when Arihant-2 comes along with "16-24" N-missiles,that we can breathe a little safer.China is right now unveiling two new secretly developed ICBMs,land and sub based,which puts it two decades ahead of us at least.We can catch up in qulaity if we adopt innovative strategies.For the moment though,we have only developing Agni-3 that can reach the farthermost parts of China and not many missiles too of the type.With the controversy about our "fizzle" gathering storm with retd. Army Chief,Gen.Malik also expressing his serious doubts about the TN warhead,until we either test again or those in the know produce for peer internal review the data available,our enemies will gloat and we will still be without a credible long range delivery system.As a sto-gap measure,we should emulate Russia ,whose strategic bombers are rather long in the tooth,and acquire asap,two squadrons of SU-34s,which can augment our delivery systems of N-warheads.

[kit]

oFF the ideal thread., but why not test the indian thermonuclear weapons in russia, they have vast areas of practically uninhabitable land.Might do wonders for our weapon designers !

[pravula]

oFF the ideal thread., but why not test the indian thermonuclear weapons in russia, they have vast areas of practically uninhabitable land.Might do wonders for our weapon designers !

Atmospheric/Underwater testing is banned for sometime now. So why go there?

[ss_roy]

Compare the specs of this missile to the proposed SLBM version of Agni-3 and draw your conclusions. Considering that solid fuel technology (and construction) are mature areas, do you really think that the K-X cannot hit as far as the RSM-56. Note the warhead is a 6-10 unit MIRV.

RSM-56 Bulava

Weight 36.8 metric tons
Length 11.5 m (without warhead), 12.1 m (launch container)
Diameter 2 m (missile), 2.1 m (launch container)
Warhead 6-10 re-entry vehicles with a yield of 100-150 kT each[2]
Engine three stage solid propellant
Operational range >8,000 kilometers

[Arun_S]

Pls note that:
Weapon = Vehicle + Payload.

Any info on mass of the Russian payload that yields 100-150 kT each?

Since Indian payload is far different (in terms of weight) the A3-SL weapon will IMHO be in a different league and be the underdog (or shall I say frog range).

[Arun_S]

Another important point,that the K-15 has as suspected,a greater range of "700-1000km" mentioned.

Thank you Philip-saar for pointing it out. So this 'deyhati' bhayyia's simulation based prediction seems to be again correct.

Long time ago Onida's had an advertisement: "Neighbor's envy, owner's pride"

[Gerard]

Any info on mass of the Russian payload that yields 100-150 kT each?

http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/h ... eads.shtml

Historical data show that the weight of warheads comes to about half of the declared throw-weight of a missile. For example, this is true for a single-warhead Topol, whose warhead is under 500 kg, and for RT-23UTTH (SS-24) – its ten warheads weighed about 2000 kg (declared throw-weight of these missiles is 1000 and 4050 kg respectively). Another half of the payload is probably taken by the bus (for MIRVed missiles), missile defense penetration aids and things like that. There is certainly some room for maneuver there, but we can probably assume that this relationship will hold for a notional MIRVed Topol-M and for Bulava.

This means that each of the six declared Bulava warheads would weigh about 90 kg. The most lightweight warheads deployed in the Soviet Union and Russia so far were those of R-29R and R-39 missiles, with weights in the 110-130 kg range (this includes reentry vehicle body and electronics) and yields of 50 and 75 kt respectively. The R-29R warheads are unlikely candidates – they are fairly old. The R-39 ones seem to be too heavy to have six of them fit on Bulava – 75-kt warheads would eat up about 70% of Bulava’s throw-weight instead of usual 50%. It is hard to tell without knowing the details of the missile design if this is going to be a problem.

Another possibility for Bulava is to have a new warhead that would resemble the U.S. W76, deployed on Trident I C-4 missiles. According to Soviet data, W76 has the weight of 91.7 kg (of which 61.5 kg was the nuclear charge, 22.7 kg – reentry vehicle body, and 6.7 kg – electronics). With the yield of 100 kt, it had a yield-to-weight ratio which is slightly better but comparable to that of the R-39 warhead (100 kt/61.5 kg vs. 75 kt/about 50-55 kg, which is about 20% difference), indicating that development of a 90-kg warhead with a 75 to 100 kt yield would not require any breakthroughs and could probably be done without nuclear tests.

As for Topol-M, it is possible that it could carry the same 90-kg warhead, should one be developed for Bulava. In this case, Topol-M would indeed be able to carry seven of them, although it would be somewhat unusual for a land-based missile to have small-yield warheads. Another option for Topol-M would be to have three warheads of the type deployed on R-23UTTH/SS-24 – at about 200 kg each they would take about half of the throw-weight of the missile. With the yield of 400 kt, they would be more in line with the historic trend.

[Arun_S]

Thanks.

Goes on to show that India needs to have at least 3 to 5 times as many A3SL missiles as the Russian missile weapon.

IOW one full Arihant is only equal to one missile tube on Russian Boomer. Or Conversely to equal deterrence of one Russian Boomer submarine India needs 12 to 20 Arihants.

Could be shocking to some on this forum.