INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

[Singha]

imo Aridaman and her sisters will be bigger boats of same diameter but 8 tubes. might feature two identical reactors to account for that or sacrifice some top speed...ie 15-20m longer.

Arihant will be the proof vessel and unique.

the 6 SSNs will likely retain the 4 tubes (for 12 nirbhay/brahmos2) but be otherwise different internally from Arihant.

[Philip]

Great New Year's gift to all (Indians)! Given the news that three more boats,S-2/3/4 are in full swing,S-1,the Arihant will most probably given the paucity of missile silos aboard,be operated as an SSGN in the future.The three N-subs under construction will probably be the "3 SSBNs" planned,while the Chakra (Akula) and S-1 (Arihant) will fill the role of SSGNs/SSNs to complement the three SSBNs . Until S-2 and her sister subs come along,S-1 will carry part of our strategic deterrent as her 4 silos can accommodate the planned strategic missile,K-15 or whatever IRBM/ICBM it is eventually planned to carry.After the 3 SSBNs are built (priority),the next lot will be SSGNs.If we acquire another Akula on lease,it will shorten the number and period of construction to just 3 SSGNs,which along with S-1 and 2 Akulas will add to the total of 9 N-boats.This number is a drop from the earlier 5/6 SSBNs/SSGNs estimates,probably due to cost and build time.The whole lot could with focussed attention be in service by 2020.

That S-1 will before the year end embark on deterrent patrols,inducting the third leg of the "triad", will be a massive step forward in the nation's strategic deterrent capabilities.It also appears that apart from the 9 N-subs,the "9" Scorpenes and another 6-8 Kilos/75-Is will give the IN at least 24+ subs to deal with the PLAN and PN.This would be the bare minimum required,as the PLAN will possess 80+
nuclear and conventional subs by 2020 and the PN will have between 12-14 Agostas and Chinese Yuan AIP subs.Idealy,at least 30+ are required to dominate the IOR and conduct advanced missions in the Indo-China/Pacific waters.

[sum]

Navy wants to have three SSBNs and six SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the long term, as reported by TOI earlier. The force is grappling with a depleting conventional underwater arm, down to only 14 ageing diesel-electric submarines.

Me still feels that the over-inflated Scorpene prices may have something to do with the 6 SSN mentioned ( some kind of Scorpene based SSN help being provided by Frenchies)... IMHO and a wet dream.

Else cant imagine where these 6 SSNs will materialize out of.

[Indranil]

I don't think that S-2, S-3 and S-4 are bigger than S-1 and I will give my reason.

If the theory is that S-2, S-3 and S-4 are bigger and are based on the knowhow gained through S-1, then the production of S-2, S-3 and S-4 would have been withheld till S-1 would have atleast finished sea trials ... Because only then would design elements gets completed validated, measurement of aquatic signatures completed, shortcomings identified etc etc.

How can S-2, S-3 and S-4 be in production (with S-2 nearing completion) SIMULTANEOUSLY and be feeding on the experience gained through S-1, when S-1 has not even started sea trials.

My theory is simple ... Arihant's design is quite sound and does the job if not excel ... So they are coming up with 3 more sister submarines as fast as they can to have boats in the water ... the design of the follow on class (bigger) subs will continue while these four enter the sea and the refinements would be done to the upcoming design through the knowhow of operating the Arihant class.

[arunsrinivasan]

INS Arihant is itself S-2.

Rest of the 2 which are under manufacturing are S-3 & S4.

Cheers!!!

Bumping this - if I remember correctly S-1 was an experimental hull that was built for experimentation. S-2 is Arihant, S-3 & S-4 are the new subs. So we will have 3 subs & not 4. This was discussed quite extensively the previous Airhant thread.

[Singha]

Indranil we are not exactly stepping on quicksand here since around 200 Russian experts oversaw the construction and Arihant hull is likely a modified design from Russian stable. so I dont think we need to play around with it for a long time like the chinese did with the 1st Han and then embark on further boats....we can simply add more tubes and maybe another reactor to get a bigger boat. diameter is already sized for the K4. the original design may have had certain options for scaling up - the wiki entry on Jin class PLAN boats meantions type1, type2 and type3 with increasing tubes.

the one constraint is trained people and space in the SBC - from google earth it looks like we could only build one more at a time indoors, not start on further boats in parallel.

4 tubes is too low for a true deterrent - we cannot make these boats like pancakes soviet union style..whatever is made is a rare item and has to serve 30 yrs with one refueling in between.

in the weight category we aspire to
Le troimphant 14,000t submerged, 1 x 150MW reactor, 16x M51 tubes
Vanguard 16,000t submerged, 1 x PWR2 reactor, 16x trident tubes
Jin-1 class, 9000t submerged , 12x tubes
RN resolution class SSBN - 9000t, 16x polaris tubes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _model.jpg

so we will likely avoid the " humble minimal smallest lightest" trap here knowing IN's taste and upsize the Arihant design by 50% to arrive at something that matches the Jin-1 class with 10-12 tubes and a single large reactor or two small reactors.

[Singha]

speaking of K4 when are we testing it? Bulava problems led to huge delays in the Borei class induction and problems still persist, so its not a guaranteed home-run by any yardstick for K4 on Arihant.

[shyamd]

Arihant is actualy an Indo - Russian project. It carries a lot of Rus systems.

[Singha]

indeed. the Rus faced issues in making truly compact SLBMs hence had to divert to the Delta 'box dabba' style and later the Typhoon which wrapped the delta box inside a immense hull. but they are back to chankian and compact games with Bulava and Borei to finally match the trident+ohio combo in sleekness.

[pkudva]

INS Arihant is itself S-2.

Rest of the 2 which are under manufacturing are S-3 & S4.

Cheers!!!

Bumping this - if I remember correctly S-1 was an experimental hull that was built for experimentation. S-2 is Arihant, S-3 & S-4 are the new subs. So we will have 3 subs & not 4. This was discussed quite extensively the previous Airhant thread.

Exactly, pls i cannot speak much on this subject....but all my colleagues here S-1 was an experimental Hull (remember NDTV) TV series.

S-2 is Arihant, and at SBC only 2 Boats are in production line which will be similar to S-2. Once we are confident with the technology, then bigger Boats will proceed.

cheers!!!

[Philip]

As long as our SSBNs come with missiles that do not overstep the ICBM range that the west fears,there is going to be litte criticsm of India,given the open display of its military might and intentions by China.However,for our deterrent tio trly deter,it is eccessary that the SSBN are eventually equipped with true ICBM whose rnge is at least 8-10,000km.This is neccessary for our SSBNs to be able to go on patrol to the far corners of the IOR if need be.This is because unlike the Russians,geography has determined that we have no maritime "bastions" ,where our subs could remain hidden near coastal bases and stay protected by their land based defensive assets,without having to go out on long patrols and be trackd by enemy attack subs.Thus far we have tried to allay the west's fears as frankly,while their may be differences of opinion and criticism of their adventurist foreign polcy,there are no disputes betwen India and the west who share similar democratic values,unlike our historic disputes with China and Pak.

There is some interesting info on the ATV and Akula-3 (as I've always maintained that we would be getting an Akula-3,confirmation when pics arrive),that we ahve received in the link.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... amily.html

[Austin]

Akula-3 , there is no official designation for such sub its just media creation.

[SaiK]

mm my concern is ratehalli geared to provide enough fuel for all the Ss? perhaps yes. if we could miniaturize a Th based reactor for the subs, the end game is always with us.

and again.. there is a strong sense for para-soon gupta for few BRites.

[atul.arvind]

There is some interesting info on the ATV and Akula-3 (as I've always maintained that we would be getting an Akula-3,confirmation when pics arrive),that we ahve received in the link.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... amily.html

Sirji wiki states that we are getting Akula 1 improved and not Akula 3.

#-----Project----Name----NATO----Shipyard----Laid down-----Launched----Commissioned----Status
K-152 971I/09719 Nerpa Akula I Improved Amur Shipyard, Komsomolsk 1993 4 July 2006 28 December 2009 Pacific Fleet has been leased out to India from the end 2011 to 2020.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula_class_submarine

[aniket]

83 MW pressurized light-water reactor, fitted in a containment vessel on board the over 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, went "critical'' last year

What does critical mean ?

[Yogi_G]

the reactor in the arihant is our first generation of miniature reactor design @90MW. with further refinements to design and subsequent tweaks enhancing efficiency we could theoretically increase power retaining size say 100-110 mw? so we cud increase hull size marginally retaining the same reactor if that were the case.

i dont remember where i read it but it seems the current tech of the arihant reactor ties in with the 3rd gen russian sub reactor tech. so we have a lot of opportunity to further improve performance and scale up on displacement.

[shiv]

83 MW pressurized light-water reactor, fitted in a containment vessel on board the over 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, went "critical'' last year

What does critical mean ?

Critical in this context means producing energy that will run the boat.

[krishnan]

83 MW pressurized light-water reactor, fitted in a containment vessel on board the over 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, went "critical'' last year

What does critical mean ?

Criticality is a nuclear term that refers to the balance of neutrons in the system. “Subcritical” refers to a system where the loss rate of neutrons is greater than the production rate of neutrons and therefore the neutron population (or number of neutrons) decreases as time goes on. “Supercritical” refers to a system where the production rate of neutrons is greater than the loss rate of neutrons and therefore the neutron population increases. When the neutron population remains constant, this means there is a perfect balance between production rate and loss rate, and the nuclear system is said to be “critical.” The criticality of a system can be calculated by comparing the rate at which neutrons are produced, from fission and other sources, to the rate at which they are lost through absorption and leakage out of the reactor core. A nuclear reactor is a system that controls this criticality or balance of neutrons.

[SaiK]

if one neutron is released for every atomic split release, and it does not split another atom, on an average it goes critically sustained. if more than one neutron is emitted, then it becomes super critical, leading to more fission.

so just the right levels of self sustained energy release on an average without blowing up!
am i right?

[Indranil]

From my class XI text book ... A fission generally leads to more than one neutrons being released. So if the reaction is let to continue unabated, an explosion takes place due to geometric progression on the number of neutrons with suitable amount of energy to continue fission.

On the other hand if you want to generate sustained energy over a long period you would absorb (done through control rods) some neutrons such that for each fission reaction only one atom is left. When this is achieved, the reaction is called critical.

[Philip]

There is an Akula-3.This version has dispensed with the large pod atop the aft fin housing the towed array.The pod was affecting the sub's wake negatively.A smaller more cylindrical housing for the array is seen on the Gepard .These Akulas,Gepard onwards (only the Nerpa thus far) have the smaller more compact and streamlined pod .The sail is also said to be slightly larger and quieting measures said to be improved.The Nerpa is the latest Akula to be built/completed.We will know her (Chakra's) class when pics and other details arrive.

[Singha]

so it appears Arihant and her two sisters are basically SSNs with large VL tubes to tide over the deterrence situation until bigger boats arrive in a decade's time. they are about same size as 688I (7000t submerged) and a little smaller than Virginia...ie around 110m length , 10-11m diameter

Virginia and 688I has 12 thawk vl tubes , so does Arihant but cleverly accomodated inside 4 SLBM tubes!

[Philip]

Yes,inspiration no doubt from the Ohio SSBN conversion into an SSGN.

[keshavchandra]

Ladies and gentleman,
It is finally a light at the end after a long wait. Our lady queen has scheduled for sea trials next month.INS Arihant has recently successfully completed Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATS).
http://idrw.org/?p=6213
bingo...

[Singha]

arihant class can best be called a smaller size variant, a mutation of the delta/yankee class hull design targeted to a more compact SLBM hence a low hump. its a good choice because both of its 'fathers' had long production runs and successful careers...so any design choices are well proven.

[uddu]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/the- ... 20488.html
K-4 tested twice, more tests to follow. But will be operational by 2017.

[nachiket]

^^That article is from November 2010. More than a year old. It was discussed here back then.

[uddu]

^Someone has asked, when K-4 will be tested and someone replied to that saying it has already been tested. Before i posted this link, Admins thought that it's classified data and both comments were removed.

[Singha]

it has only been tested per the article for tube ejection and surface breaching by a inert missile not a proper launch. it has to be pontoon launched a few times and then launched from Arihant.

so the 2017 target IOC is a realistic one.

[Philip]

Just for the record,as to why we took so long in developing the ATV,here are soem intersting facts,perhaps fogotten.In the same context,I was once told first person,by the man who had to decide,that when he was in Russia taken to see the "item",he was first shown only on the hull.He point blank refused and threatened to return to India unless he was given a full tour,parameters and performance spelt out in full, so that he could make his mind up.He got his way!

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?225427
ATV

It was taken on lease from the erstwhile Soviet Union midway through the nuclear submarine project. But 30 years and Rs 7,500 crore later, India may still have to rely on imports.

It was in 1975 that then prime minister Indira Gandhi gave the go-ahead for the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project to develop an indigenous nuclear-powered submarine. But 30 years on and Rs 7,500 crore later, the DRDO's most prestigious project is yet to materialise. The latest projection is that the country will have a nuclear sub by 2008. But this could well be another case of "indigenous" technology with its vital equipment imported.

Controversy has dogged the project all along. There was even a move to refer it to the central vigilance commissioner in the late 1990s to investigate the "leakage of funds". Though serious allegations were raised, the project was too "hot" for the vigilance commission. In 1992, the CAG attempted an audit, but the report remained unpublished. This makes it the only major military project left unreported by the CAG.

The submarine project's 'top secret' label puts it effectively beyond scrutiny. Till 1983, funds for it were routed through various ministries—surface transport, shipping and atomic energy. An attempt in 1996 to get a techno-economic study done by eminent technocrats was scuttled, with the DRDO conveniently invoking the secrecy clause.

According to those involved with the project, lack of coordination and focus marked the ATV project out as a failure from day one. The first 10 years were wasted in debating what reactor would suit the vessel. The navy, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the DRDO failed to agree on crucial issues. The navy was supposed to provide the design, BARC the reactor. Raja Ramanna, then the director of BARC and also the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, simply told the navy to keep off the reactor design.

The Soviets had informally offered India a fleet of nuclear subs way back in 1979. But the DRDO and the scientific advisors claimed it could be built indigenously. Says a senior official associated with the project, "Eight years later, in 1987, the Soviet offer was renewed. This time Ramanna and others at an apex board meeting said we'd produce it in no time. ..all that was required was to lease a Soviet vessel."

That happened in 1988. The intention was to copy the design and to train Indian officers to operate the indigenous version as soon as it was ready.All the manuals and detailed documentation were studied but nothing much came out of it. INS Chakra, as the leased sub was called, was a symbol of India's presence in the Indian Ocean till 1991.Thereafter, the lease lapsed.

When Kalam took over DRDO in 1992, the project was still plagued with reactor and design problems.His first deadline was 1995-96; extensions were given continuously. Then PM H.D. Deve Gowda agreed to pump in Rs 2,500 crore. The first trials were a scream—the reactor would not fit into the hull of the submarine! Soviet scientists had pointed to this design discrepancy earlier itself but, alas, too late. The DRDO design was based on the conventional battery-charged SSK class of subs and the reactor was a derivative of BARC's Apsara reactor. A patent mismatch.

For a while, the NDA government toyed with a proposal to lease two Akula class nuclear subs and to acquire technology through reverse engineering, with critical parts imported from Russia. The new proposals would keep the middlemen in defence deals happy and the DRDO 'proud' of building an 'indigenous' nuclear submarine. But the proposals haven't materialised.

Fortunately,all that is "water under the bridge",but it shows how bombastic claims to deliver by our indigenous boffins have plagued the defence of the nation in almost every major weapon system or project,be it Arjun,the LCA,ATV,some missile systems with delays cost overruns and sub-standard performance.One key deficiency that the MOD lacks is a knowledgable technical committee of neutrals,who can evaluate the claims being made by both foreign and local PSUs of ther ability to deliver perforance,on time and at what price.Key projects must also be given heads with sweeping powers so that either they deliver on time or they get sacked.The services too should also refrain from moving the "goalposts of technology " every time a new develoment is made somewhere in the world.At some point the deisgns should be frozen and first prototypes produced which can in later avatars be incrnentally upgraded.

[Austin]

Arhiant most certainly has significant Russian contribution including the reactors design are from Russia and 2 were outrightly imported as mentioned in BK book ( BK and all who have access it it knows very well where the reactor has come from ) , the design of sub has nothing to do with old INS Chakra , the design has been developed in co-ordination with Rubin and validated in Russia , it was all done in almost a record decade time since BARC/DRDO didnt make much progress and post 1998 detterence need was very pressing and couldnt wait for ever for things to show up.

Critical components like Sonar , ESM and other components related to safety and C&C of nuclear weapons were developed by DRDO labs , some components have been directly imported including initially the pressure hull materials are procured directly from Russia.

Cant blames much on DRDO or Naval Design Bureau since they have no experience in designing a single conventional sub forget the nuclear one , all effort to build conventional capability to do so was lost with Type 209 deal and now we are spending many times over to build the same capability with Scorpene SSK after 2 decades ...what an irony.

[Multatuli]

Austin wrote:

Cant blames much on DRDO or Naval Design Bureau since they have no experience in designing a single conventional sub forget the nuclear one,

Well there is blame to be apportioned:

According to those involved with the project, lack of coordination and focus marked the ATV project out as a failure from day one. The first 10 years were wasted in debating what reactor would suit the vessel. The navy, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the DRDO failed to agree on crucial issues. The navy was supposed to provide the design, BARC the reactor. Raja Ramanna, then the director of BARC and also the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, simply told the navy to keep off the reactor design.

This is a recurring theme in Indian government funded R&D: chaos (or lack of coordination as the author calls it), everyone/every organization involved fights everyone/every organization involved (bloated ego's, etc.)

This is a cultural problem, India to a large degree is still a feudal society, a non-democratic, non-meritorious, non-egalitarian society.
Only a cursory look at the kind of politicians/political culture will confirm this. And the kind of politicians/political culture is a good indicator for the kind of governance a country will have, as the political culture percolates the entire government apparatus and all government orginizations (and society in general). This is hugely off topic.

[shiv]

Key projects must also be given heads with sweeping powers so that either they deliver on time or they get sacked.

No one ever gets sacked from a government post. The worst might be a kick upwards.

[Austin]

Multatuli , Look at it this way asking DRDO to develop a world class SSBN is like today asking DRDO to develop a B-2 bomber in 10-15 .... you cant ask for moon and you dont expect miracles.

All countries that have developed submarine including countries like US has gone through its decades of paces having faced hard times even loosing entire sub crew during development trials , its a risky affair and a gradual process

Look at china where they stand in development of SSBN , almost after 30 years of SSN/SSBN development we are told by ONI that its latest Subs quitening level barely matches the Victor class or even inferior to it. They must have invested terrible amount of money , human and industrial power to even reach where they are and yet they are like 40 years behind the SU and US in key areas sub development , which is inspite of fact that chinese had a robust SSK development program even if that means producing modified Soviet class SSK.

We have zero experience in designing a conventional submarine , BARC inspite of 25 plus years of Nuclear submarine development has developed penuts and many times have been at logger heads with the navy and since much of the activity is covered by OSA and under tight secrecy there will be no CAG telling us what went wrong.

DRDO is no miracle organisation and if they were told to design a good SSBN they would have gone through their own hard times like all countries did that did things on their own. IN would barely accept such an approach as they need the detterence capability now and here and to some decent technology standards.

The only way is to ask for Russian help and help us leap frog decades of trial and pain part ( which ofcourse has its own merits ) and help us develop a SSBN that according to russian ambassador has technology equivalent to Akula which is pretty good , as the chinese has not reached there yet.

Still we have a long way to go but atleast a good beginning is made , which is much better then what BARC promised us.

[merlin]

I fail to understand what credibility the IN would have in terms of delivering a design for a nuclear reactor to power the ATV. I mean IN - design a nuclear reactor!!!

[Austin]

No one ever gets sacked from a government post. The worst might be a kick upwards.

True , Why worry when every thing is saari saaaaar

[Kanson]

Yes,inspiration no doubt from the Ohio SSBN conversion into an SSGN.

Can't they think for themselves? Everything has to inspired and copied from others? Or, is it your humble belief that your fellow Indians don't have any grey matter inside the skull?

You/We know very little about the deliberations that went before making any such product. Anyone who was taken for a ride from purpose fed cock and bull stories only make such comments.

[tsarkar]

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?225427

This article is correct up to late 90s. Until that point we did everything wrong. Once we made all possible mistakes, then nothing could go wrong. Thereafter, we did mostly right, barring a few hiccups here and there.

Yes,inspiration no doubt from the Ohio SSBN conversion into an SSGN.

Not correct. Given we're SDRE, we planned to use the same hull to fire BrahMos, K-15, and K-4, if and when these missiles would materialize. Since poor Indians cant build a different hull for every missile, we built one hull but ensured silos could fire both K-15 and K-4.

The Ohio conversion missile tubes can fire Tomahawks but not Tridents like ATV. Same for Virginia, that is getting CM tubes packed in a larger tube, but the larger tube cannot fire BMs. Dual fit tubes never dawned on anyone before the SDREs. That is one of THE key innovations of our project.

Also, metal for Indian silos were cut before Ohio redesign took shape.

[Philip]

Kanson,your "cock and bull" comments are anything but ribtickling.If you have anything woirthwhile to comment please do,not rant and rave against individuals signifyng nothing.I have nowhere said anything detrimental against the IN's designers/naval architects,in fact in another thread I have actually recently posted a tribute to the IN and its Corps of Naval Constructors!

If you have studied the evolution of the SSGN,and conversion first of SSBNs anywhere with the Ohio,you will see a similarity with our ATV,which appeared much later.There is also a Russian warhsip design where a single silo holds three missiles.Secondly,we have NO experience of developing a sub-launched IRBM or ICBM,missile silo for a sub,etc. ,until the arrival of the ATV,whcih has yet to fire even a test missile above or below water! Our Klub missiles are fired from the torpedo tubes and not silos aboard our Kilos .Therefore our lack of experience is evident.Where we obtained our design of the ATV in the main in general ,has been spelt out by others and is well known.In time surely we will prouce innovative designs and features.These have been well expressed in our indigenously designed warships.As for subs,we lost our sub-building knowledge and are now paying a fortune to just rediscover it again.

[harbans]

I fail to understand what credibility the IN would have in terms of delivering a design for a nuclear reactor to power the ATV. I mean IN - design a nuclear reactor!!!

IN has no reactor design capability. The author of the article means Design Specs probably.

As far as project delays go, i think it's more a management than technological issue really. But we seem to think technology is the big issue. For a country like India and it's tremendous human resource capability, technology will never be an issue. Funds and management issues have been chronic last few decades. I think we are coming out of that stage. When resources are limited, ego's are big it's difficult whom to pin one's faith on and bogging down of projects is to be expected. Obviously there would be scientists at BARC who'd have studied reactor miniaturization for decades. But integrating that design, developing redundancies and coordinating development within time frames and financial constraints is outside the scope of that Scientist in BARC for example. The fact that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel on many of these big time projects should be the satisfaction we derive from the process. We must learn from them rather than dismiss them as cultural or some inherent weaknesses.