INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2010 18:43

Sandeep's article on the "K-series" of missiles has some interesting facts and indicates that the follow on series of ATVs will definitely be larger than the Arihant.If the K-4 or whatever it is eventually named sub-launched 3,500-5,000km range missile is 12m in length,then we are talking of a SSBN of about 10,000t.It will need at least 12 silos with MIRV warheads.The sub's diameter may be made larger or to accomodate the extra length of the new missile ,the silos might protrude above the hull as in Russian SSBNs,hopefully not as violently and massively as in the latest Chinese SSBN,which will definitely affect its quieting.The forthcoming visit of the Russian pres. is going to be very interesting,as not too long ago,Russian def. analysts proposed that to counter China,Russia makes available to India Backfire nuclear bombers and even Oscar class SSGNs,which have huge missile silos,able to accomodate even greater ranged ballistic missiles of Trident class if need be.Therefore the development of larger sized sub-launched N-tipped missiles should be accelerated as they could be accomodated aboard both our indigenous and any Russian subs on offer,which might assist in faster induction of our strategic deterrent should our devlopment and production of the subs take longer than expected.

The development of the K-series is a huge achievement and there should be no hesitation of the govt. in bringing the projects into service asap.From the article there appeared to be a hint of some rivalry between teams which had developed Prithvi and Agni as opposed to those responsible for the later more sophistciated K-series.All the types are required by India right now as we have yet to see our triad mature fully.Until them whatever we have has to be used to the best of our ability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Nov 2010 19:10

well even 8 silos could be a design. the delta class is one design with a small diameter but a huge box like shape behind the sail and it works!
http://www.military-today.com/navy/delt ... ass_l1.jpg

they might decide to go the hump route to keep size low -> less powerful reactor will suffice , less cost etc.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Nov 2010 19:19

Singha as long as the flow noise issue is kept under control there are no major problems with teh a turtel deck approach. The Soviets have built at least 20 boats with this design in the 4 iterations of the delta class.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Nov 2010 20:43

IMO, we need a big boat which carried a decent range (1,500kms) Cruise missile to flatten target pertaining to 'non-state' actors. Also, the land attack component required of Naval aviation can lowered that much - plus, the flexibility it gives. Nothing like mother-of-all artillery platform roaming the oceans.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Nov 2010 21:21

well 8 tubes could carry 24 nirbhay SLCM. the torpedo room with 30-40 weapons capacity could carry another 15 maybe. 40 is not a bad number.

too big and you lose the ability to manouver in the shallow waters of the andaman sea and around indonesia/south china sea.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 24 Nov 2010 02:15

Rohit: to flatter non-state actor targets, ship-launched Nirbhays are good enough. During Gulf War, I dont recall any Tomahawks being launched from subs. We dont want to take the risk of revealing Arihant's location for the sake of non-state actors.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Nov 2010 04:22

Prem Kumar wrote:Rohit: to flatter non-state actor targets, ship-launched Nirbhays are good enough. During Gulf War, I dont recall any Tomahawks being launched from subs. We dont want to take the risk of revealing Arihant's location for the sake of non-state actors.

Saar agreed that during Gulf War the Tomahawks used Destroyers and Missile Cruisers as launch platform, however they were not facing a Naval force that could hit back in kind.

In our case it will be a mucho different scenario in that the most probable case in which the Nirbhay may be used the launch platform will indeed be facing off against credible naval surface and sub surface threats that will try to hit back. Yes given Nirbhays significant range it will give the launch platform some advantage in terms of stand off, however our two most probable and potential adversaries have a credible sub fleet that continues to expand....JMT

Anant · Post by **Anant** » 24 Nov 2010 04:57

Submarines did fire tomahawks during the first gulf war.

Excerpt:

Two submarines and a number of surface ships fired Tomahawk cruise missiles during the Gulf War. According to initial US Navy reports, of 297 attempted cruise missile launches, 290 missiles fired and 242 Tomahawks hit their targets. The speed, stealth, endurance and firepower of today’s nuclear submarines were demonstrated in 1991 during America’s participation in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Used primarily as surveillance platforms, USS Chicago and USS Louisville operated in conjunction with Allied Naval Forces in the Red Sea. On January 19, 1991, USS Louisville made the transition from passive surveillance to active combatant, becoming the first submarine in history to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile against an enemy target.

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ration.htm

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Nov 2010 17:41

Prasun Sengupta has posted following comments in Shiv Aroor’s blog @ India Today article “K-missile Family” ...
-------------------------------------

Now here's what the article fails to throw light on:
1) How exactly will the most survivable element of India's strategic nuclear triad (the SSBN and its on-board SLBMs) provide credible deterrence when the SLBMs have a range of no more than 5,000km? Why is the DRDO unable to develop an SLBM with a range of 8,000km, as mandated in the so-called 'classified' report prepared by Admiral (Ret'd) Arun Prakash?
2) How will the 10-metre long K-15 or the 12-metre long K-4 be made to fit into the 10-metre diameter pressure hull of the Arihant SSBN?
3) Who will validate the results of the combination of the K-15/K-4 and the Arihant in terms of vessel stability/buoyancy and personnel safety? The DRDO or the Russians?
4) What are the technical glitches with the Arihant? Do they concern the on-board nuclear reactor and is that the reason why the n-reactor has not yet received its consignment of n-fuel rods? Or is it is design problem since the n-reactor design provided by the Russians was originally meant for a nuclear ice-breaker, and not for a SSBN? Is the DAE therefore now facing some previously unforeseen but fundamental design/containment problems?
5) Will the DAE and DRDO be able to develop completely new n-warheads for the SLBM, since existing warhead designs meant for the Agni family of ballistic missiles will be totally unsuitable for the SLBMs?
6) Consequently, won't the n-warheads of the SLBMs require additional testing--aka Shatki-3 series of tests?
7) Lastly, will India's political decision-makers have the balls to authorise a standalone, ready-to-fire nuclear arsenal to proceed on operation al patrols in peacetime and wartime into the deep waters of the Indian Ocean at a time when it insists on keeping the land-based ballistic missiles' n-warheads and their plutonium-based cores under the DRDO's and DAE's custody, and not with the Strategic Forces Command, which is left with only an inventory warhead-less ballistic missiles?

--------

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... Popup=true

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Nov 2010 17:41

Prasun Sengupta further responds to other comments..
..

Parthvader: When you're giving the US, UK and French examples you're talking about an existing SSBN operator upgrading its arsenal of SLBMs by discarding the old type in favour of newer designs, and NOT by adapting the n-warheads of land-based ballistic missiles for use by SLBMs. In addition, both the US and France along with the Russians and Chinese had until the mid-1990s periodically tested and consequently improved their respective SLBM-specific n-warheads.
In India's case, one has to develop the SLBM's warhead from scratch as it had, by May 1998, only tested the warhead designs meant for land-based ballistic missiles. And as you may have read in the INDIA TODAY article (read it carefully oncev again if you missed it), the K-15/K-4 programme formally got underway in only 2004. Therefore, no purpose-built n-warhead designed for an SLBM was tested back in May 1998, simply because no one had by then envisaged the need for SLBMs!

To pranav: Fitment of the SLBMs within the Arihant's pressure hull is indeed the most technologically challenging task, something which only the US, French and the UK have succeeded for their SSBN fleets. The Russians and Chinese have not, till this day and hence their SSBNs always sport the distinctive hump over and above the pressure hull. And this in turn makes things pretty dangerous for such an SSBN, especially if it were to be involved in underwater collisions of the type the Soviets encountered during the Cold War. Can you give me any example from any existing Navy that keeps its SLBMs horizontally and launches them semi-vertically as and when required? Mind you, I'm asking you about SLBMs, and not anti-ship cruise missiles.

To winnie: When you claim that the ATV reactor is complete Indian, how exactly do you define the operative term 'complete Indian'? Is it like the case of the Su-30MKI, which everyone from the MoD to HAL claims to be a made-in-India product? I'm asking you this because till to date, no one authority from the MoD or the DAE has emphatically stated that the ATV's n-reactor was designed and developed in India. If you read any of Dr Anil Kakodkar's interviews after July 26, 2009. all he states is that the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has built the miniaturised n-reactor. Now, that again is disinformation since BARC on its own has never had any in-house capability to design any kind of n-reactor, leave alone a PWR. The domestically-made 220mW and 540mW n-reactors and and FBTR were designed and engineered by specialists hailing from NPCIL. The steam generators, heat exchangers and propulsion systems were built (and not designed) by the likes of L & T and Walchandnagar Industries that had industrial tie-ups with their Russian counterparts, facts which the companies themselves gave out at DEFEXPO 2010 last February. Lastly, had the ATV's n-reactor been a homegrown contemporary design, it would then have had a lifespan of at least 25 years. Instead, as has been revealed by Rear Admiral (Ret'd) Raja Menon (a member of the NSC), the Arihant's n-reactor has only a 10-year lifespan! This crucial revelation clearly proves that the Arihant's n-reactor is of early 1980s vintage. And we all know through Capt (Ret'd) Subbarao's statements that the DAE, till 1988, had not even mastered the theoretical aspects of PWRs, leave alone design and production engineering!

------------------------
To [email protected]: The figure of 8,000km isn't a figment of my imagination. Rather, this figure has repeatedly been given out by several senior Indian Navy officials, including former Navy Chiefs, who have also clearly stated that the Indian SSBN fleet will not be operating in either the Bay of Bengal or South China Sea (for reasons that are obvious), but exclusively in the southern end of the Indian Ocean off Maldives. Thus the designated area of operations for the Indian SSBNs will be the IOR, as per Indian Navy utterances.

To [email protected]: I'm aware of the SLBM's ready-to-fire mode status. And this is where the problem will likely arise, since even with a no-first use doctrine, quick and decisive decisions would have to be taken, for which a matching command-and-control system will need to be in place. That. till this day, remains highly elusive in India, since the GoI is in no mood to establish the institution of the Chief of Defence Staff which, by the way, cannot be substituted by either the existing Chiefs of Staff Committee or by a briefcase (black or otherwise) belonging to the PM.

---------------------------

To Pranav: Interesting dilemma in terms of SSBN hull design challenges. But I for one don't foresee the advent of SLBMs in horizontal launch configurations.

To Rajat: Very pertinent question indeed. Why this self-imposed limitation then? Could it be that the deal struck with the Russians back on June 21, 1998 (under a secret annexure when signing the contract for for the two 1,000mW VVER light water reactors for Koodankulam project) was limited strictly to submarine-based applications of the Russia-supplied n-reactor design?

To [email protected]: Hey, it's not me that wants the SLBMs contained within the pressure hull! Ask the world's operators of SSBNs and they will tell you why exactly they prefer the SLBM silos to be encased within the SSBN's pressure hull. Even the Soviets realised the disadvantages of the SLBM silos jutting out of the pressure hull (as in the case of Project 667BDR Kalmar/Project 667BDRM SSBNs) and quickly proceeded to overcome them by introducing the Type 941 Akula-class SSBN that did away with the distinctive humps noticeable on the Project 667BDR/667BDRM-class SSBNs. This was done by increasing the SSBN's displacement, beamwidth and draught. If one were to apply this kind of experience on the ATV programme, there's no way a K-4 or its 5,000km-range growth version can fit on the 6,000-tonne Arihant. The only way to make it fit will be to introduce the 'distinctive hump' on the Arihant at a later stage, something which the Indian Navy is reportedly against.
Regarding the SLBM's warheads, yes, the core will definitely require n-testing.

To [email protected]: It's not about negativity or positivity, nor is it about critising. One is only trying to share opinions and observations in an objective manner. Does that hurt you?
----------------------------------

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 26 Nov 2010 20:57

Let me just remark here that NPCIL doesn't design reactor cores. It constructs and operates the reactors. The final engineering drawings are though put together by NPCIL together with BARC. This is because they need to place order for equipment. The design work for 220/540/700 MWe reactors was done by BARC and that includes other future variants in the pipeline such as thorium reactors.

It would be plain wrong to claim that BARC doesn't design reactors but NPCIL does. Reality is just the oppposite. Trust me on this.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 26 Nov 2010 23:36

that guy is plain dumb!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 27 Nov 2010 06:21

Hmm,
Thank you Dinesha for meticulously aggregating and posting Prasun K Sengupta's responses from some other blog.

Hmmmmm.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2010 09:05

Prasun Sengupta further responds to other comments..
..

To pranav: Fitment of the SLBMs within the Arihant's pressure hull is indeed the most technologically challenging task, something which only the US, French and the UK have succeeded for their SSBN fleets. The Russians and Chinese have not, till this day and hence their SSBNs always sport the distinctive hump over and above the pressure hull. And this in turn makes things pretty dangerous for such an SSBN,

Both US and UK SSBNs have distinctive hump. May be he has to watch them when they are for repairs.

Only the French Le Triomphant Class has its hump much more streamlined that others. If I may add to make an observation, INS Arihant from the pics available looks similar in that asepct though not to that extent.

Le Triomphant Class

From the same angle one can spot a distinctive hump in Ohio and Vanguard but not in le triomphant.

As per India Today, Length of K4 missile of range 6000 km is 12m.

French SLBM M51, length is 12m, range is 6000 km, dia is 2.3m and payload is reported to be 1400kg similar to Agni-V reported payload of 1500kg.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2010 09:18

Sengupta definitely has some 'guptrog'

don't know from where he cooks up such BS, I mean what does one make of this ?

In India's case, one has to develop the SLBM's warhead from scratch as it had, by May 1998, only tested the warhead designs meant for land-based ballistic missiles

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Nov 2010 09:25

Gagan, What warrants this tone and tenor.. just because your post count?
Granted Prasun in person non grata here.. do you discount everything he says..
case for testing of SLBM n-warhead has been made by many others.. including Karnad..
Some intelligent discussion could be extracted.. I hoped

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2010 09:31

@negi, I guess, he is talking about high weapon grade plutonium used in SLBM warheads. That is about the material purity. What is that has to do with design, I couldn't get him. How he come to know that the material tested is not pure to that standard? So far, there is no information shared with anyone regarding the material used and their purity.

But then if the material is not plutonium? who knows what is/will be used?

he cooks up such BS

In the name of shaming DAE/BARC he is putting the Naval officers involved in the spot.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2010 09:47

From this angle i can see, both are streamlined compared to others.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Nov 2010 09:48

Is it only me or the Triomphant does not have any torp tubes.

Also it is supposed to be equiped with 16 10000 KM range ICBMs on a 11000 ton hull. The previous gen French boats were 6000 tons odd with 16, 5300 KM range Missiles 6 warheads each. As were nearly all the 1st and 2nd gen SSBN of the US and the UK. With a weapon in the range of 5300 kms Polaris or Posiden. It is only with the current generation baots that the US/UK went very TFTA.

That being the case, why do the members

about the 6000 ton Arihant being too SDRE. That is, if it is 6000 tons.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2010 09:49

Kanson our official position has been that of all the tests conducted under Pok-II only Shakti-II was a 'warhead' rest were nuclear devices and afaik we have no where categorically specified if it is a strictly SLBM/ICBM type warhead.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2010 09:51

Very true.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2010 09:56

Btw what's this new stuff about difference in Pu enrichment level , hain ? should go to the newbie thread I guess.

I for one thought the 'physics package' for a given yield could remain the same obviously the warheads might differ due to other reasons (flight regime, packing density,angle of reentry etc).

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Nov 2010 09:56

negi wrote:Kanson our official position has been that of all the tests conducted under Pok-II only Shakti-II was a 'warhead' rest were nuclear devices and afaik we have no where categorically specified if it is a strictly SLBM/ICBM type warhead.

If the weapon was a warhead capable of being fitted on a RV. Then it is irrelevant if the RV is released from a land based ICBM or sea based ICBM. The weapon will work from either one of the launchers. So to suggest the India will have to conduct the test again is ignorent to say the least.

JMT.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Nov 2010 10:16

negi wrote:Btw what's this new stuff about difference in Pu enrichment level , hain ? should go to the newbie thread I guess.

I for one thought the 'physics package' for a given yield could remain the same obviously the warheads might differ due to other reasons (flight regime, packing density,angle of reentry etc).

No newbie...pls go throu this.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/pu-isotope.htm

Reactor section has heavy concealment. But missile section wont be to that standard as it involves weight penalty(Don't know how it is designed now). So warheads of those missiles must be of higher purity to not to put people living for longer time in the closed confined space like sub to radiation hazard.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Nov 2010 10:36

^ Well I got confused I took it for a given that under normal circumstances all the Pu based designs would use WGPu hence I was surprised when you spoke of SLBMs having to use warheads of even higher WGPu also the article differentiates between only reactor grade Pu and WGPu. As it is Shakti-II is AC deliverable so I suppose it should have the radiation part addressed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Nov 2010 16:44

I'm not sure whether one has noticed in the ATV pic.,much clearer in this one than earlier ones,the two distinct covers of the torpedo tubes on the bow of the ATV. These appear to be larger than normal sized 533mm tubes.If so then these would be able to fire Shkval high speed torpedos and long range cruise missiles too (Nirbhay?).As far as the N-reactor goes,Kalpakkam already has had for quite some the prototype working,an identical design to that on the ATV.The reason why the fuel rods have yet to be loaded if these reports are true is because the builders probably want the regime of harbour trials completed before the sub goes to sea on N-power.We are told that the sub will be commissioned only in 2013 and that is some time away.The point made in Sandeep's article is that one K-15 can be accomodated into one of the four silos-meant to carry 3 K-15 each,indicates that the ATV is in all probability a trial run ,which would validate our design and capability so that larger vessels could be built in the future.This design,modified sutably,would be of the right size for an Indian SSGN.The flexibility of the missile silos to carry two types of missiles indicates this.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Nov 2010 17:07

The question I have is what are harbour trials. Is it a test of the subs parking skills

.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 27 Nov 2010 17:20

Hello Kanson : Excellent link, it reminds of very hotly debate on your post by the "he who must not be named anymore" on this forum. About health of people living near by and why the drdo scientist were right on their theory. Guru's i believe we need more debate on this important thing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Nov 2010 19:24

I thought we did make some heavy advancements in reduced weight u233 thermos from the motivation that pakis emitted more alphas than this puppy.

/kidding

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2010 00:09

Edited two pictures of the INS Arihant on the Wikipedia page:

Arihant Class Submarine

Click images for larger pics.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Nov 2010 00:12

I think the props are too small.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 28 Nov 2010 00:42

How come only 4 silos - thought there were 8?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2010 01:14

Rahul M wrote:I think the props are too small.

The pictures of the other subs also have props with similar dimensions, so I sort of made then that size.

The Arihant apparently has 4 big diameter silos ~2.5m diameter silos.

Each silo can house one of the 3500Km range K-4 missile or with a suitable adapter can house 3 Sagarika missiles of 750-1200Km range each.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Nov 2010 02:07

I think, Patrick Cusack is right.

It has 8 silos. 4 smaller ones to accommodate one K-15 in each and 4 bigger ones to accommodate 2 K-15 in each or 1 k-4 missile.

@ Gagan, are they new ones, newly drawn? the pics look nice.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2010 06:03

This is one possible configuration of the VLS missile tubes.

It seems that there are 4 tubes on this sub.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 Nov 2010 06:56

Apologize if I am a bit naive, but wouldnt this configuration mean that the submarine has to fire at least 3 missiles everytime it opens one hatch?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2010 07:39

exactly..aditya g, you beat me to that question.

BTW, it may house more than three B-05 missile range of 700km walas.

I would really like us to advance to some B-50 walas for A3 range targets from subsurface launch - marking the real entry to terms talking with neighborhood.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Nov 2010 08:07

From the youtube missile firings off subs, it seems that there is a sealed cannister within which the missile is placed, and the missile's nose breaks the cover to come in contact with water.

This configuration on the arihant is not new, the US subs have similar configurations for firing off Tomahawk cruise missiles. In fact their latest virginia class SSGNs have I think 6 cruise missiles in one VLS launch tube with only one hatch covering all 6 missiles. Apparently, each individual missile is sealed in its container before it is lowered into the VLS tube.

Or maybe there are hatches inside covering each missile after the main hatch is opened. The 3 missile per big diameter VLS is for the much smaller K-15 missile, so there should be enough space for a hatch covering each small VLS tube.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Nov 2010 09:26

I think it was stated by Sandeep that it has 4 Silos , each silo can carry 3 K-15 or 1 K-4.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 28 Nov 2010 09:35

Looks like they cracked the hump issue - excellent.