INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Aug 2009 14:10

Willy wrote:How many nuke warheads is India capable of building at the moment and how many would we need in the future.

Ten less than Pakistan.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Aug 2009 14:53

Rahul M wrote:
How many nuke warheads is India capable of building at the moment

How much fissile material do we have.
that would come under 'classified information'. better leave it at that.

Isn't the answer '42'?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2009 14:55

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Aug 2009 15:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_fr ... g_.2842.29

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 14 Aug 2009 16:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_ ... estruction

45-95

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2009 16:16

look again.

(these wiki numbers mean absolutely nothing, GOI has done a stellar job in this regard)

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 14 Aug 2009 16:18

When they could hide arihant and make all BR jingo speculate so much, you really think we will known the right amount of new clear bums we have?

ksmahesh · Post by **ksmahesh** » 14 Aug 2009 17:04

How many nuke warheads is India capable of building at the moment

How much fissile material do we have.

According to some very credible pan wallah (which I cannot disclose

) sources India is sitting on a pile of 2000 nikulear bums.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 14 Aug 2009 17:13

Well I looked again and dont think that rector grade pluto is much use even though there were reports of a device at P-II being made of rector grade pluto. But maybe the same can be reprocessed rite. And if we GOI keeps all this under the hat how can we expect he chinks and the pakis to crap in their pants

P.S. I am all for a nuclear free world. But till they are around we have to live with it I guess and have to do our damnest to have a credible deterent.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Aug 2009 17:30

wrt the Brahmos.
1. Will the russian destroyers of the Gorshkov class which will deploy the brahmos be able to use the full range of the missile of 500-600 kms? (Because the MTCR does not apply here)
2. Can the Arihant fire the sub-launched Brahmos? I tend to think that it can. Since there is no platform in the IN that can fire the sub-launched version.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Aug 2009 17:45

Dileep wrote:Isn't the answer '42'?

Just providing the answer to the ultimate question is not enough Madhi Dileep-uddin.

You need to provide a large friendly looking towel and the encyclopedia which has written in large friendly fonts: DON'T PANIC!

Otherwise what will the TFTA warriors and their traller than moutains and deeper than seas friends do?

Of course we could build a bypass through Pakistan. That would solve their problems.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2009 17:54

Willy wrote:Well I looked again

you did ? and how many nukes do we have now ?

Dileep wrote:
How many nuke warheads is India capable of building at the moment

How much fissile material do we have.
Isn't the answer '42'?

That is the only number we can be sure of that is NOT the answer.
if 42' was indeed the correct answer, then

How much fissile material do we have.

is "The Ultimate Question". of course, both ultimate question and ultimate answer can't exist in the same universe, since this universe is still surviving, that(^^^) is clearly not the right question, hence by association 42 is not the right answer.
Q.E.D

saip · Post by **saip** » 14 Aug 2009 18:01

I thought everyone knew that the reactor is yet to be started in the Sub. So why is it such a news?

India's nuclear sub doesn't have working reactor yet

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Aug 2009 18:03

Gagan wrote:wrt the Brahmos.
1. Will the russian destroyers of the Gorshkov class which will deploy the brahmos be able to use the full range of the missile of 500-600 kms? (Because the MTCR does not apply here)

We have no reason to believe that Brahmos can fly further than the stated range of 290 kms.

Brahmos (L=8.4 m; Dia=0.6 m; Wt=3000 kg; Warhead=300 kg; Range=290 km)
Yakhont (L=8.9 m; Dia=0.7 m; Wt=3000 kg; Warhead=250 kg; Range=300 km)
Granit (L=10 m; Dia=0.85 m; Wt=7000 kg; Warhead=750 kg; Range=625 km)
Source : wikipedia

Brahmos is supposed to be based on Yakhont which in turn is derived from Granit. The above comparison table leads me to believe that the stated range is about right.
JMT

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Aug 2009 18:29

Gagan wrote:wrt the Brahmos.
1. Will the russian destroyers of the Gorshkov class which will deploy the brahmos be able to use the full range of the missile of 500-600 kms? (Because the MTCR does not apply here)

MTCR applies there its a joint project , you cant get away with two different range for the same missile , so Brahmos on Groshkov class , Talwar Class or any other class will have the same range ie ~ 290 km.

I am not sure if 500 - 600 kms is the range they can achieve , but with Hi - Hi trajectory their range should be higher.

2. Can the Arihant fire the sub-launched Brahmos? I tend to think that it can. Since there is no platform in the IN that can fire the sub-launched version.

Do we have an operational sub launched Brahmos ?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Aug 2009 18:35

Austin wrote:Do we have an operational sub launched Brahmos ?

We don't, and one of the reasons that has been quoted often is the lack of a platform to test it. Same with the K-15, Although the pontoon is there, everyone seems to want an actual test from the sub VLS.

I understand that the Amurs will be able to fire a Brahmos off the VLS, but such an amur is atleast 7-8 years away. The Arihant is in the waters today, with a VLS system.

I wonder if it has wide enough torpedo tubes or a VLS that will allow a sub-launched Brahmos test.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Aug 2009 19:02

Gagan wrote:We don't, and one of the reasons that has been quoted often is the lack of a platform to test it. Same with the K-15, Although the pontoon is there, everyone seems to want an actual test from the sub VLS.

Sub launched was not a priority and came after LA and Air-launched variant , if it was a high priority they could have taken to russia and tested it they have many subs that can do it.

I understand that the Amurs will be able to fire a Brahmos off the VLS, but such an amur is atleast 7-8 years away. The Arihant is in the waters today, with a VLS

The IN has not asked for VLS capability for P-75I , but for AIP capability as per an Interview given my an Admiral to Force magazine.

I wonder if it has wide enough torpedo tubes or a VLS that will allow a sub-launched Brahmos test.

Should be possible from 65 cm TT , the Type 65 torpedoes are dimension wise bigger and heavier than Brahmos and can be fired from 65 cm TT .

Charu · Post by **Charu** » 14 Aug 2009 19:45

The official DAE illustration of INS Arihant (as in Shiv Aroor's blog) shows electric propulsion as the prime mover for the prop (powered by electricity generated by the nuclear reactor - steam turbine combine). This is a radical design and will make our Arihant silent and stealth when it comes to noise levels associated with propeller shaft, bearings etc etc. If I am correct there are no nuclear subs yet with electric propulsion in the world. I think this idea is being considered by nuclear sub builders around the world.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 14 Aug 2009 20:25

IMHO India needs around 3000 Shakti TN bombs as the assured yield per device is only 20-40kt (depending on whom we believe) with hopeful yield of 100-300kt again depending on who is not lying.

We need to scrap DE submarine fleet and we need 20SSNs and 10SSBNs. Each SSBN will carry 12 KX. So around 12x10x6 = 720 nukes need to be sea deployed of which around 3 SSBNs will be on permanent patrol.

We need 2000 nukes as I am assuming that 50% nukes will be destroyed in first strike. around 50% of remaining will be non-usable, non-reachable or intercepted or fail. This means that 25% nuke strenght will be required to control China, Pak, Collaborating powers and have reserve. Say a ratio of 3:1:1:1

China requires

10 major cities 5 nukes each = 50
20 cities 3 nukes each=60
30 major military complexes 3 nukes each=90
30 mini cities 2 nukes each = 60
30 military bases 2 nukes each = 60

Remaining for sea fleets, islands, Beijing, shangai, nuke bases etc

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2009 20:26

but wasnt the electric drive idea abandoned for the DD21 ships and is proposed as a enhancement for Virginia only in the distant future ?

I doubt such a radical idea would be tried out in Arihant - we needed to reduce project risk and run with proven tactics there.

the drawing is 100% not arihant imo - merely illustrative

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Aug 2009 20:43

ksmahesh wrote:
How many nuke warheads is India capable of building at the moment

How much fissile material do we have.
According to some very credible pan wallah (which I cannot disclose ) sources India is sitting on a pile of 2000 nikulear bums.

Do we just dig up thorium-rich soil and pack it into a gravity bomb?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 14 Aug 2009 21:08

About a year ago during the 123 times I had said India needs at minimum about 800 Nooklear devices to reciprocate the same good intentions of the gang of P5.

Our man Alok N who dons the hat of prof teen patti in mavericks world siad "JS pulled this number from his musharaf"
so much for his profession

according to people in know the current numbers are between 150 to 200, few screw turns away.

Everything is well controlled maya you see
*********************

It is not entirely radical but novel

There are many advantages to such a departure in a new venture.

The unit testing is more easy to perform
you can place the battery pack in the same location as that of reactor to test out all other systems of the sub, and then remove the battery pack and insert the nuke power pack and steam turbine pack which were unit tested on the ground and in simulation of the sub parameters.

test all parameters of the sub as if it is conventional
Test all power pack (nuke )independent of the sub
mate them after for integrated tests.

also in case emergency due to N pack requiring shut down The sub would still have some power to continue with normal operations to surface or rescue..IMHO

I think any Hybrid car would also be tested in the same way during development.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Aug 2009 21:18

The French Redoubtable, Rubis class and even China's Type093 employ the turbo-electric propulsion . However RU and US subs employ steam turbines to couple the thermal output to the drive train . Normally for given reactor generating 'X' Mwt turbo-electric drives would lead to additional 10-20% losses in energy conversion vis a vis a standard steam turbine feeding a mechanical drive train i.e. lesser SHP being made available to the screw.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 14 Aug 2009 21:22

For turbo gen coupling the loss of 10 to 20% seems very high. I think it should be around 5 to 8% max giving an efficiency of 92% to 95 %. for this stage(only)

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 14 Aug 2009 21:57

Saip

India's nuclear sub doesn't have working reactor yet"

As a consequence of this news - there are 2 rumors floating around
1) Arihant was floated with Reactor installed.
2) Arihant was floated without a reactor.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 14 Aug 2009 22:13

Charu,

Nuclear generators heat water, which creates steam, which drives a turbine, which generates electricity, which powers the motors, which turn the propeller shaft.

Its always been that way only with nuclear propulsion. Nothing unique about the cycle.

Charu wrote:re: "electric drive"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2009 22:14

1) Arihant was floated with Reactor installed.

which is correct.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Aug 2009 22:32

Patrick, The reactor will go critical after all the systems are checked out. In about a year. Thats standard practice all over the world.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Aug 2009 22:35

Raj Malhotra wrote:We need to scrap DE submarine fleet and we need 20SSNs and 10SSBNs.

Raj,
diesel electric submarines are very quite and are excellent in the shallow waters of the littorals. They are cheap and hence excellent for coastal defence.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... b2301.aspx

The beauty about a diesel submarine is that it has the potential to be far quieter than a nuclear submarine,” says Guy Stitt

Hunting for quiet diesel submarines in the shallow waters of the littorals is akin to trying to identify the sound of a single car engine in the din of a major city, he says.

But perhaps their best selling point is their relatively inexpensive price tags. The Russians have sold diesel submarines for as little as $200 million and the French have exported their Scorpene submarines for $300 million.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 14 Aug 2009 22:37

Rahul

Quote:
1) Arihant was floated with Reactor installed.

which is correct.

Thanks - that is a relief given Chinese is brazen/arrogant and their cronies(Pak, Bangla, Burma, SriLanka) are more and more sneaky - they CANNOT be trusted at all EVER - NEVER.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Aug 2009 22:44

IMHO India needs around 3000 Shakti TN bombs

To deter whom? How many weapons does China have?
That is far beyond what is "credible minimum". Those numbers are suitable for counterforce targeting, not the countervalue, credible minimum deterrent that India has declared.

What facilities would be needed for producing all that fissile material? What would they cost?

The UK has <200 warheads, France is reducing their numbers from 400+ to <300.
Is there any nation not deterred by the prospect of a nuclear retaliation from either the UK or France?

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 14 Aug 2009 22:57

3000 bombs is quite a stretch.

China is nowhere near deploying an arsenal of anything more than 300-400 weapons - forget anything beyond 1000!

Our concerns are that since we have a no first use policy a good portion of our arsenal will be taken out by the adversary - effectively doubling the number of weapons we would need to strike, say China.

One way of reducing this risk is to keep land based/air delivered warheads and delivery mechanisms geographically seperated - effectively doubling the number of targets the adversary should take out.

I'd be satisfied with an arsenal of 250 15kt yield warheads. Will the US or China risk a 100 of these warheads exploding in their territory?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Aug 2009 22:59

This is where a SSBN comes in...A guaranteed second strike and unacceptable damage to the enemy.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Aug 2009 23:00

India's nuclear submarine and the Indian Ocean

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Aug 2009 23:11

And I might add all the secrecy, fuss, jingoism and guess work about the actual beast.

We have discussed the kind of missile, the qty of missile, the types of warhead, etc on a thread related to a submarine launch.

It is the ultimate power projection platform.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 14 Aug 2009 23:12

Arun's Agni configurations show Agni-3-SL can delivery 8-12 petals. I wonder if 8x 15kt warheads cause less damage to a megacity than 3x 200kt warheads?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Aug 2009 23:17

pankajs wrote:We have discussed the kind of missile, the qty of missile, the types of warhead, etc on a thread related to a submarine launch.

We have also discussed the coconut. Don't forget that.
We at 22 pages of a second thread and not much more enlightened than before the boat was launched. Not even a decent photo to look at.

The needs of national security trump those of jingos....

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Aug 2009 23:39

We have also discussed the coconut. Don't forget that.

lol I forgot

The needs of national security trump those of jingos....

True sir. However, ek jhalak of an Agni-SL launching from a submerged submarine would do a lot of good to the hearts of the jingos.

Guess that will have to wait.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 15 Aug 2009 00:47

pankajs wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:We need to scrap DE submarine fleet and we need 20SSNs and 10SSBNs.
Raj,
diesel electric submarines are very quite and are excellent in the shallow waters of the littorals. They are cheap and hence excellent for coastal defence.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... b2301.aspx
The beauty about a diesel submarine is that it has the potential to be far quieter than a nuclear submarine,” says Guy Stitt

Hunting for quiet diesel submarines in the shallow waters of the littorals is akin to trying to identify the sound of a single car engine in the din of a major city, he says.

But perhaps their best selling point is their relatively inexpensive price tags. The Russians have sold diesel submarines for as little as $200 million and the French have exported their Scorpene submarines for $300 million.

Explain that to USA, UK, France!

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 15 Aug 2009 01:09

Diesel is for the tech-underdog?