INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2009 13:25

I was actually thinking a bit further ahead to our "proper" SSBN which would
no doubt have 12 tubes. each could unleash 36 LACMs and more fired out of the torpedo tubes.

a desi Oscar class-mki armed with a limited number of nuclear weapons( say 6) and the rest conventional could make a mess of the chinese deep water port infra in the pearl river delta (around 9 ports there)

its very hard to know in high seas which ship is going where and apart from
logistics involved will cause trouble with other nations. we cannot do it
without a 2000 ship navy.

the soln is simple - destroy their port infra and you destroy their ability to
import and export stuff - hurts their economy for months and years. one can
hardly use coolies to unload 40ft containers or dry bulk goods like ores and grains by hand

the ships will mill around and then decamp unable to (un)load.

we should aim to unleash Oscar class type "day of the dog" type strikes
on major chinese port and petroleum infra (refineries and storage farms are generally near the coast for a net oil importer).

obviously these have to conventional and carry a lot of weight.

we cannot do it by ship in the face of plaaf/plan air power

we cannot do it by air without a fleet of 50 Tu160 blackjacks and
overflying multiple countries who'd want to remain neutral

we can do it by sub

there are also rich cachement area (hinterland) upstream from shenzhen
and shanghai. hit certain prestigious targets (like the big taiwanese elec
firms assembling there) and basic industrial complexes that process plastics
and metals - you could knock over 1000s of downstream industries.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 13:28

narayanan wrote: Nope. The Akula Class is for revenge.

Ok even without getting into whether we have weaponized TNs or not, I just dont see how Akula's are for revenge. Akula's are simple tactical units, for destroying the warfare potential and will be used.

I dont mean to say that cant be called revenge, but what I mean is total and ultimate revenge. The answer to a Nuke attack on Delhi and Bombay.

But there is no need to advertise or make business cases for Arihant-class subs using that argument.

Very confusing, aren't the Arihants the one with VL tubes and capable of carrying large weapons cruise or ballistic missiles?

Unless of course the bolded part is the key. However discussing on BRF is not same as that (neither is BCs article) and heck if we can figure that out so can others.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 13:32

Singha wrote:I was actually thinking a bit further ahead to our "proper" SSBN which would
no doubt have 12 tubes. each could unleash 36 LACMs and more fired out of the torpedo tubes.

Thats interesting, but given the very few subs we will have, do you expect that our top of the line would be used of anything expect the "final deterrence" what if such a strike exposes the sub and then risks its use later in the war for the "final solution"

Call me conservative, but I would rather do that with my Akula's etc if need be, much better for that purpose.

we cannot do it by air without a fleet of 50 Tu160 blackjacks and
overflying multiple countries who'd want to remain neutral

Wont a 5-6 blackjack overflying Mynamar etc be enough? There is hardly going to be real opposition (not diplomatic hoo haa) from those.

I would do that, 5-6 black jack sending out a mass of Hypersonic brahmos

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2009 13:34

well the problem is we will get max 2 Akulas and they do not have VL tubes.
obese in size but doesnt come with essentials like vl tubes. so all weapons are tube launched. probably rules out brahmos and shourya. nirbhay may be possible - tomahawk can be tube launched - RN trafalgar subs do it.

AIP equipped subs would not have the endurance and speed to slip past
indonesia/timor sea, launch attacks on PRC mainland and come back again.

still, we can use them to ambush anything chinese coming through and for
that a A&N islands pearl harbour base would be nice to have.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 30 Jul 2009 13:38

No argument with the fact that for a given yield, the TN is probably lighter. But for most targets that I can imagine the IN needing to hit, a
TN is waaaay too much of an escalation
for it to be contemplated, so TN-equipped SLCMs are also the equivalent of the instruments that were called "Raman", "Sita" etc. that used to sit in corners of IIT research labs, totally unusable.

The moment India puts a nuclear tipped missile in the Arihant, it is an escalation, and a significant one at that. So far, we have been tom tomming the fact that we do not mate nuclear warheads with the delivery platforms. Pages have been written at the altar of political correctness that show how good we are by keeping the cores under civilian control with DAE.

Now all this goes out of the window and we have mated warheads running around, which is a escalation, period. Or maybe we will still not mate the warheads and Arihant will still move about with blanks... who knows? BTW, Its not that I disagree with your post though, Arihant will probably end up with a mix of conventional and non conventional warheads initially.

I would really love to hear the dhoti prashad babus on this: they must be getting nightmares that a navy captain will have control over nukes (PAL not withstanding) and their precious civilian supremacy being eroded away.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 13:39

Singha wrote:well the problem is we will get max 2 Akulas and they do not have VL tubes.
obese in size but doesnt come with essentials like vl tubes. so all weapons are tube launched. probably rules out brahmos and shourya. nirbhay may be possible - tomahawk can be tube launched - RN trafalgar subs do it.

Then we need more Akula's or other attack subs with this ability.

That does not take away the need for having 5-6 Arihants and ICBMs anyway as I mentioned before. Different strokes, different purposes.

Yes if we have 20+ Arihants then

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 13:41

Tanaji wrote:The moment India puts a nuclear tipped missile in the Arihant, it is an escalation, and a significant one at that. So far, we have been tom tomming the fact that we do not mate nuclear warheads with the delivery platforms. Pages have been written at the altar of political correctness that show how good we are by keeping the cores under civilian control with DAE.

Are we? I thought that chapter was closed when the white paper on minimum credible deterrence as well NFU doctrine came out.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 30 Jul 2009 13:44

Sanku wrote:
Tanaji wrote:The moment India puts a nuclear tipped missile in the Arihant, it is an escalation, and a significant one at that. So far, we have been tom tomming the fact that we do not mate nuclear warheads with the delivery platforms. Pages have been written at the altar of political correctness that show how good we are by keeping the cores under civilian control with DAE.
Are we? I thought that chapter was closed when the white paper on minimum credible deterrence as well NFU doctrine came out.

Where did the white paper say that they will keep mated warheads 24 x7? It only says "minimum credible", which can mean cores that are dispersed, but not yet mated. And given GoI's penchant for "civilian control", it seems unlikely that they will hand out cores.

Remember the reports during Parakram and Kargil timeframe which stated GoI had removed the cores from BARC?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 13:50

Tanaji wrote:Where did the white paper say that they will keep mated warheads 24 x7? It only says "minimum credible", which can mean cores that are dispersed, but not yet mated.

True, but it also talked of the triad, and as I understand the submarines always have mated warheads. So it made its escalation stand pretty clear. Only that it could not actually do what it wanted at the time.

Also as an enemy with the dispersed warhead thingy on a rail mounted Agni, I would assume that there are no civilians around (or if any no different from MoD/IA type) while the control may still remain with civilians on a hot line, I would assume that at least some vehicles are mated.

At least we have stopped tom tomming the separation since the paper came out, I couldnt find any talking about it, do you know of any references.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jul 2009 13:55

May I put Narayana s and Arun s arguments in simple terms ; Arun is viewing the Arihant in a more strategic detterent mode where as Narayana is looking for a more tactical role.Arun s views are very pertinent since India lacks a capable second strike capability,with lesser number of subs the bigger bang can come with thermonuclear MIRVs. Narayana is looking for a more active role for the subs with tactical missile strikes and possibly covert operations.And in this role you dont need nukes and frankly .. no nuclear sub as well., though it would be the ideal.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2009 14:10

A key factor in the Arihant class' capability is the number and size of T-tubes.If one assume,safely,that two sizes of tubes are present,the larger 650mm size tubes can launch cruise missiles too.The Israeli Dolphin class German built conventional subs have this capability,which is suspected of being able to fire N-warhead cruise missiles.The Akulas carry 40 torpedoes or missiles,therefore a significant number of cruise missiles with N-warheads can be carried in a crisis,at least 12.These would complement the missiles aboard the Arihant SSBNs.It appears that at least two-three Akulas will be in service with the IN,or even a follow on attack SSGN design from Russia.This is because to operate 10 N-subs (5+5 SSBNs/SSGNs) by 2020+,would require one N-sub every year or 18 months.This figure can only be achieved if more (the five ) attack subs were built in Russia and every two years or so one N-sub was built in India,apart from conventional sub building.

Therefore, once the IN "tastes" the capability of an Akula,the submarine arm might plump for more N-powered attack subs than conventional subs for obvious reasons.It is only in the littoral warfare sector where the conventional subs being smaller and quieter have an edge.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 15:01

Philip wrote: PS:Russia will not integrate the Brahmos with the Scorpene for two reasons.First,it's far easier done on a Russian sub design,rather than on an existing French design which will require a large amount of redesign and by whom?Russia will not want to give France its sub tech as it is a rival!Secondly,like any country,it wants to sell the capability for its own sub industry,which some say would be a potential of upto 40 subs for export to developing nations.A new design is always preferable.In anticipation of some export orders of the missile,Rubin has proposed a joint new design with Italy,also offered to India.

Philip , let me emphasis it , Brahmos is not a russian only missile , its a joint development , so Russia cannot object to we using on French made submarine or French designed surface ship , much like we cannot object to they using Brahmos on their surface ship or submarine.

Its only when we export to 3rd countries that we will have to mutually agree upon.

It is not less easier or harder to fit Brahmos on Russian submarine or any western submarine once the sub launch variant is tested , any submarine will need a VLS Tube to launch Brahmos.

Russian currently does not have any operational conventional submarine with VLS or Brahmos , The Amur 1950 plus they are proposing are just on paper , the lada they are currently operationalising does not have VLS or Fuel Cell.

So lot of this claims are still on paper ,and they are looking for an export customer to put the paper claims into reality , atleast the Scorpene has a larger variant S-80 under development.

We can work with French to custom design a similar large Scorpene with AIP and VLS system.

This will help the IN in the short and long run to stream line their logistics , training , weapons , supply and shore facility on a single type with maximum commonality possible.

Having 2 different type of submarine is at the end a logistics nightmare and an expensive business , with little tactical advantage to be gained. Specially when there is talks of leasing more SSN and building SSN for IN .

Else we repeat the same mistake of 80's and history repeats itself.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 30 Jul 2009 15:06

aliasgar wrote:Did anyone see this news article:
http://www.merinews.com/article/reactor ... 7333.shtml

The author sounds like one of those people who can find no joy in whatever the country does to progress.

Oh, he just needs some "Adigal" that's all.

Adigal (അടികള്‍) in mallu means slaps, or beating up

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 15:09

I would agree with Philip in one respect though, it may make sense to have a scorpene+nuke reactor. Since our nuclear reactor owes much to Russians it may not be possible to get them to agree to use it on Scorpene.

So if we indeed go for more Non-arihant nuclear vessels, the question of chosing a russian platform may arise once more.

However at the moment there is no reason to assume that those wont be Akula's and their derivatives instead on Scorpenes.

So
Arihant class -- self surviving SSBNs (Akula + Borei so to say) -- purely survivable second strike with assured destruction capablities.
Akula etc -- Usable nuclear submarines, against naval and land based assets.
Scorpene + -- littoral anti Pakistan land subs and general purpose IOR sea denial subs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 15:11

For those who are proposing Conventional SLCM for Arihant , are diluting the concept of Nuclear deterrence , there is a certain number of warhead and certain number of subs on patrol to make the 3rd leg of deterrent effective.

So if India manages to get 3 Arihant , atleast 1 will be on deterrent patrol while the other 2 will be for maintenenace works , training and stuff like that.

The trade off of conventional SLCM with a N-armed SLBM is not worth it , not atleast with the small fleet of SSBN we will operate.

If one trades of Nuclear Missile with a conventional SLCM then its diluting the entire purpose of effective deterrence , thats the reason no country with having a SSBN force does such trade off even with SSBN numbers , warhead yeald , SLBM in its favour.

One can always arm Akula or conventional SSK with SLCM , atleast the moderinsed Kilo carries 5 Klub LACM with a range of ~ 300 Km.

But the billion dollar question is do we have the balls to do a conventional strike with LACM into Paki land , so far its been all fart no shit

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Jul 2009 15:48

JaiS wrote:Premvir Das: INS Arihant - A watershed moment

Useful article by Vice Admiral (Retd) Premvir Das, formerly Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, for the background of the ATV Project:

…………………….. It was over two decades ago that we embarked on a project termed the ATV, or Advanced Technology Vessel. As far back as the mid-1970s, a small unit called Project 932 was constituted under a Commander rank officer under the aegis of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)—its task: to develop feasibility of a small reactor which could fit within a submarine hull. This project moved slowly and with mixed results, with less than enthusiastic support from the Navy’s hierarchy. In 1980, it nearly came to a dead halt. An officer working in the project, not a nuclear reactor engineer but one who had acquired deep knowledge in this field on his own, persuaded the then Navy Chief that the DAE design was seriously flawed. The matter was taken up with the then Scientific Adviser in the Ministry of Defence, Dr Raja Ramanna — a distinguished nuclear scientist himself — but without resolution. The result was that the 932, already on slow march, ground to a halt. The officer who had questioned the design being developed left the Navy and, whilst en route to the US, was arrested at the airport for possessing highly classified literature which later turned out to be all in the public domain. He spent some years in prison, argued his own case before the court and was acquitted, with strictures passed against the DAE.

It was not until the mid-1980s that the concept was revived as the ATV Project, this time under the Department of Defence Research and Development (DRDO). By 1989, a full-fledged organisation had been put in place with outlying units at Kalpakkam (under DAE for reactor design) and Hyderabad (for developing auxiliaries and systems). We then entered into an agreement with Russia for developmental and design assistance for a nuclear-powered submarine. From then to now has been a long journey of two decades with many ups and downs but with some very substantial long-term gains. Indigenous participation — especially of private sector companies, Larsen and Toubro and Walchand, to name only two — has been very encouraging. Aside from the reactor, we now have manufacturers who can build and weld submarine hull sections which can stand pressures at great depths. …………...........

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2009 16:19

The Scorpene project is already in trouble with delays for the first non-AIP subs,admitted by AKA.By the time the first 6 are built in India,it will be almost 2020 at the rate we're going! So when will the Scorpene+ with AIP and Brahmos arrive? The project is not only delayed,France wants more money too.It is highly unlikely that given this fiasco,when France already obtained an initial higher price which was strongly objected to by PC before the contract was signed,will be seriously considered for the second line.Furthermore,France is trying desperately to sell more subs to Pak,which will definitely be either Scorpene or an advanced design.Let me reiterate,Russia will be most reluctant to fit Brahmos on a Scorpene,as the sub design is French and is a rival to it in the world market.A Russian conventional sub with the Russo-Indo Brahmos missile aboard will be a surefire winner in many sub contests for friendly developing nations.The ATV/ Arihant primarily is to serve our strategic deterrent and Akulas may be tasked to protect them when out on patrol.We need several conventional subs,as numbers are important,with tactical missiles for both anti-ship/land attack and ASUW missiles for anti-sub ops too.The range of operations in the IOR and beyond has already been listed .

The Russo-Italian design offered to us is a Rubin (Russian) led project.France as said before is a competitor with Russia,plus,there is a huge amount of work not just fitting another missile section,but integrating the missiles into the combat system,etc. which is French.France is also developing a nuclear powered sub for Brazil.When we already have successfully launched an N-sub with Russian tech,there is no reason to now go in for French tech for a recator or N-sub.The key technology required are the reactor/powerplant, in the case of conventional subs,the best AIP system available.Quieting tech,the VLS missiles aboard the sub,the sonar systems-bow,conformal,towed arrays,NHP (non-hull penetrating) periscopes and communications masts,sub combat system,max diving depth,machinery and systems automation and crew strength,weapon systems -torpedoes/missiles/mines and decoys-hard and soft kill,provision for UUVs and special forces and their delivery vehicles,tetc. to name some.After operating the first Scorpenes,we can evaluate the performance of the sub and its tech against German and Russian tech that we possess.

Eventually,we may end up building two classes of N-subs and two classes of conventional subs or just one hybrid AIP design in the future,incorporating the best of east and west.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 17:14

The trouble is because we wanted to do it our self from the first sub , so the delay is out there mostly from our side as I have read it.

It would have been smarter to let the french built the first two sub and the rest at MDL , atleast it will be delivered on time and does not affect operational readiness.

We can co-develop a larger variant of Scorpene with VLS and AIP and let them do the first two sub , learning from this experience and then L&T build the rest.

Subs will always be expensive you buy russian , german or french , it depends what goes inside and what the IN has asked for , but maintaining two different lines of sub over a period of 30 years or subs life will be a very expensive affair.

All the russian claim about Amur is paperish claim , so it hardly makes any difference , eventually IN needs a custom built large conventional sub for 2nd line , better to streamline it and reduce the types IN operates.

The Brahmos claim does not have any valid grounds , it not a Klub system where Russia can veto.

But there are very strong Russian lobbies in the Navy , so it is possible that they may win the day , over any rational purchase that we should be making in our national interest

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2009 17:50

with respect to missiles in Arihant whether SLCM or SLBM, SSGN and SSBN has different role to play.

While the key parameter for SSBN is to stay stealthy, low profile, away from traffic so as to ensure survivability for the time when it is needed. I don't think any country, unless it has backing of huge inventory, will send SSBN on normal patrols.

With SSGN the basic parameter is fast moving, long endurance sub which can protect vital shipping lanes, conduct conventional warfare / Low intensity nuke warfare, capable of taking out war fighting capacity of enemy and hurting him economically.

I hope we have privilege to own both the types, but given our limited sources, i don't see it happening atleast for one more decade. So a trade of has to be done which will be dependent on what our security experts / Nuclear command authority and Navy/IAF/IA perceives of threat.

It will include our capability of second strike from land and air and probability of them surviving first strike by enemy. Remember all the discussion we had about rail mobility of Agni. Further, it will take into account enemies strength, his capability on Anti ballistic Missile front (Say if China develops a reasonable ABM, we need to increase the no of missile to over run their ABM system and also to make up the loss of intercepted missiles), capability of our missiles against ABM, their accuracy, Mutual assured destruction we want to ensure in case of nuclear catastrophe among other things.

The above is the reason i suppose we have tried to develop a multi role kind of submarine which can be tasked to any mission which will be carrying both SLBM (again of two categories) / SLCM / torpedos.

BTW, one tube will accommodate 3 K 15 type. We are quoting SLCM also to be 3 per tube which sounds inconsistent considering the specs of K 15 - (Weight - 17 tone, Lenght 18.5Mts and diameter 1.8meter) as against that of Brahmos ( weight 3 tonnes, length 8.5meters and diameter - 0.6 meter), P 700 granit (weight 7T, length 10 Meter and diameter -0.85mts),

-Nitin

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 18:07

Just for some comparisons:

Trident SSBN-SSGN conversion

Description of the Conversion. The Tridents as converted can carry up to 154
Tomahawk cruise missiles (or other non-strategic land attack missiles ) and 66 Navy
SEAL special operations forces (SOF) personnel.6 Each boat retains its 24 large-diameter
SLBM launch tubes but the boats have been modified as follows:
! SLBM tubes 1 and 2 were altered to serve as lockout chambers for the SOF personnel. Each chamber is equipped to connect to an Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) or Dry Deck Shelter (DDS).7 Other spaces were converted to berth and support 66 SOF personnel.
! Tubes 3 through 24 were modified to carry 7 Tomahawks each, for a total of 154 Tomahawks. Alternatively, tubes 3 through 10 can be used to carry additional SOF equipment and supplies; leaving tubes 11 through 24 to carry 98 missiles.
! The Trident SLBM fire control systems were replaced with tactical missile fire control systems, and certain other systems aboard the boats were modernized.

key phrase:

leaving tubes 11 through 24 to carry 98 missiles.

Nitin, why are all these Brexperts going on

as if the Arihant has to be strictly one type or the other? ( I see that your post makes clear that the Arihant can do multiple roles, thx)

Isn't it possible to, say, have a mix, with 6 of the 12 tubes dedicated to nuke ballistic missiles and the rest capable of doing these other things? If I had to make a prediction of Indian planning under tight budget and time constraints, I would predict that something like this would be the preference. From the "conversion" story above, it appears that some sort of long, expensive drydock conversion has to be done, and the converted tubes are no longer available or the other type of use. Permanent conversion.

To my way of thinking, the SS*N is a game changer because it has long range and submerged endurance, and because of that, it can be very hard to detect, and hence very hard to stop from doing what it wants to do, and to find and knock out its weapons once released. So the fear due to not knowing where it is and what it may do, is the single biggest deterrent, whether to Hong Shin or Fijian or Paki tinpot dictators or Somali warlords.

These "tubes", IIRC, are simply chambers that can be pressurized enough to pop their contents out into the water, and then as they break the surface, other engines fire and send them on their way. Isn't that still correct? They don't fire rocket engines inside a submarine!

So it shouldn't matter a whole lot whether the thing that is popped out is a ballistic missile, or something else with a similar capsule shape and same/lower weight, hain? Certainly the support equipment would be different.

Also, can a sub actually move and load a second salve of ballistic missiles into these tubes (sounds like it from the Trident description), or are the missiles loaded into their tubes using dock side cranes?) Is there space inside a sub, devoted to swinging a missile from horizontal to vertical?

All these calculations that the Strat Community does, like, "do they have exactly enough nuke to wipe out ALL my silos and cities, or only 73.98%? " seem a bit pointless to me. I know they used such stuff in the Cold War, but that was mainly to get funding through the Congress / Politburo.

The calculations would usually have to be:
1. If I use nukes will we suffer massive losses, and hence do they deter us?
2. If they use nukes will they suffer massive losses and hence do we deter them?

Beyond that, only nutcases calculate to see if 25 out of our our 1.1 billion or 35 out of their 1.3 billion people will survive, with only 33% radiation burns over their bodies when all the tubes and silos have been emptied.

So a nuke sub out there with 6 (or 18?) nuke ballistic missiles, is essentially as powerful a deterrent as a nuke sub out there with 12 (or 36?) missiles. Hence I would use the other 6 tubes for other things, and vastly improve the conventional deterrent (or conventional use) value of the weapon system, at least until 5 more of the class are launched.

Also, is it really true that Indian diesel subs are quieter and harder to detect than nuclear subs? Why is that so?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 18:47

What more is needed than this to prove it is indeed a multipurpose one

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2009 18:55

er, N3 sir the tubes are loaded dockside. but a mixed loaded definitely makes sense.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2009 19:01

Having 2 different type of submarine is at the end a logistics nightmare and an expensive business , with little tactical advantage to be gained. Specially when there is talks of leasing more SSN and building SSN for IN .

I'm not against having improved Scorpene as a s-line. But having various classes of Surface combatants operated by IN in the same category, how it could be that having 2 subs can be perceived as logistic nightmare to IN. SSN and SSK comes under two different categories.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 30 Jul 2009 19:33

Congrats to IN, DRDO, atomic research orgs, GoI, MoD, NSA....

I hope IAF and IA also learns from IN ....

try to introduce, enhance, improve local produce Tejas, MCA, LCH, Dhruv, Arjun, INSAS, Nag, Helina, Agni and all other products...

Progress is revolution, explosion is destruction. Who does not opt for revolution, heads for destruction.

{no problem with the sentiment, but you may have to change your user name to something that meets the guidelines... progressively explosive Admin}

Thank you for changing the name

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 19:35

Integrated conventional and .. patrol.

As Laurel said to Hardy,

NOW you're using MY brain!

Says it all, thx.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 19:52

Kanson wrote:I'm not against having improved Scorpene as a s-line. But having various classes of Surface combatants operated by IN in the same category, how it could be that having 2 subs can be perceived as logistic nightmare to IN. SSN and SSK comes under two different categories.

That is the reason IN is moving towards Standard frigate like P-17/17A with LM2500 being the standard powerplant , ditto for weapons system Brahmos .. etc etc , they will have as much as possible standards in powerplant , IP/CMS , weapons etc

Most of the current fleet is due to legacy where we took stuff since they were available at soft credit or virtually free , ditto for Kilo... the first 6 -8 Kilo were offered virtually free ( 21 years soft credit , barter calculated by MOF as nearly free ) by SU.

Standardization of Weapons/Platform/Spares across all 3 service in their respective area is the key towards achieving lower operating cost and the entire end to end logistics chain supply

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2009 19:53

Isn't it possible to, say, have a mix, with 6 of the 12 tubes dedicated to nuke ballistic missiles and the rest capable of doing these other things? If I had to make a prediction of Indian planning under tight budget and time constraints, I would predict that something like this would be the preference.

It certainly is the preferred approach at this point of time. Our defense establishment very well knows it and hence INS Arihant...

But the point of debate is whether it is the best approach. That is why all these posts of br experts. Even I feel, there should be different dedicated role in the longer term. Of course, even then we can have multirole subs but there should be clear demarcation as to which sub will be primarily a SSBN and which will be SSGN for the points mentioned in my earlier post.

All these calculations that the Strat Community does, like, "do they have exactly enough nuke to wipe out ALL my silos and cities, or only 73.98%? " seem a bit pointless to me. I know they used such stuff in the Cold War, but that was mainly to get funding through the Congress / Politburo.

I beg to differ I dont think MAD has lost relevance. Consider the example of Japan which took hit twice but still survived to become one of the largest economy in the world. Now consider an hypothetical example of Sino-India war. I hope you will agree that any nuclear fall out will be critical to the survival of both the nation. now what if we are struck bad considering the large strategic force of China, but cannot give a fitting reply because of lower strategic arsenal. Even if we destroy 1 /2 cities of china, it may survive and surface again in future. But what about us...This will be the time we will think that it would have been better if we would have more strategic missiles / wareheads. Now the question is how much? Answer is level of MAD.

Just my take on subject...

-Nitin

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 20:15

Thanks, nitin.
Also from the Trident article:

The Trident SLBM fire control systems were replaced with tactical missile fire control systems, and certain other systems aboard the boats were modernized.

So I see that there have to be different fire control systems if the sub is to be able to fire different types of things, it's not just a question of popping in a different Flash drive, and saying "Fire One! Fire two!" regardless of what is popped out.

But the article also makes clear that Tubes 3 through 10 are multipurpose tubes, that can be used for several types of missions.

Seems like once you have mastered the art of making such multipurpose subs, you won't go back to the one-or-the-other strategy.

Also, I see that Arihant which can serve as a mini-Boomer is 6000 tons, short dark and rice-eating, whereas the Akula is 12000 tons, but does not have VL tubes. Can you fire SLCMs through the torpedo tubes? AFAIK, SLCMs are if anything smaller and lighter than torpedoes, so I don't see why not, except that the SLCM may have to be modified to swim like a dolphin and pop out at a shallow angle, then fire engines and zoom out.

Otherwise, the Akula vs. Arihant size comparison seems inverted. Why should an attack sub be so big?

I read the VL tubes as being Russian reluctance to rent out things that can wipe out Russia.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 20:29

narayanan , the Ohio SSGN conversion program is not a good example because these subs were suppose to be thrown out after a post cold war review and some chaps came up with the idea lets make some good use of it rather then throw it with tons of reason and so was born Ohio SSGN , the tin heads in Russia are also planning to convert 2 of the remaining 3 Typhoon into SSGN.

Coming back to Arihant as a multiplatform , it would depend on the number of warhead the tin heads in Dilli think is absolutely necessary for deterrence and survivability of 2nd strike platform , at the end of the day a sub can carry onlee x number of missile and y number of warhead

If you have just 1 submarine on patrol at any point of time you have little flexibility to have part SLBM/part conventional SLCM ( again it depends on how many warhead Dill Billi thinks its necessary to be out at sea )

SSBN provides a very high level of assured strike reliability , but its no way a full proof system , they can still be tracked while on patrol and can still be attacked before they release their payload , in spite of the vast sea out there.

And number of SSBN out at sea and the quality of the platform , besides tactics and training also matters and yes experience counts.

We are at the very beginning of this phase . the child is just born , we never know how good Arihant will turn out to be , all the specs on paper needs to come true in sea trial , plus experience have to be gained in manning and operating the platform on deterrent patrol.

So in short to medium term this part SLCM/SLBM conversion is just a fallacy good to discuss over Chai, Biscuit and Mujahid , the first few SSBN will only carry SLBM ( K-15 or K-x ) as their main VLS payload.

Till such time the conventional subs like Scorpene , Kilo and Second Line can carry conventional SLCM for terror strike role ( i.e. if we ever have or develop the balls to do so against Paki mujahid

)

About diesel being quite than Nuclear SSN , possible with old gen of N subs , but with the likes of Virginia/Yasen the jury is open and quietness is just one critical part of subs matrix , the other being sensor/flexible payload and fast quite search capability

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 20:30

narayanan wrote:Arihant role and responsiblities and comparisons with US conversions

N the comparisons with US converting its Nuke SSBNs to multi role is moot, since they have more than enough for deterrence. US is not into the game of "do we destroy 73% or 74%" they are in the game of "do we really need to destroy 1000 times or will 500 times suffice with other 500 times going for conventional warfare"

The scales are different.

Also there is no denying that Arihant will probably be a Borei + Akula type, a multipurpose vehicle, a bit of both. However the role assigned to it will not be chosen because of what it can do, but what we want it to do.

As of now it is more than clear that the few Arihants we will have over next 10-20 years will be hard pressed to provide to "can we hit them 5%" role.

Short of a brain damage to GoI, I dont think the doctrine as envisaged will be diluted, which means that Arihants will be able to do a lot but will primarily lurk around quietly waiting to exhale.

For course given what we have seen brain damage at GoI seems a perfectly possible alternative too.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2009 20:40

But the article also makes clear that Tubes 3 through 10 are multipurpose tubes, that can be used for several types of missions.

Ya, but still type of missile is same... What implies it that either it will be SLBM tube or SLCM tube. same tube cannot fire both

Seems like once you have mastered the art of making such multipurpose subs, you won't go back to the one-or-the-other strategy.

True.

Can you fire SLCMs through the torpedo tubes?

Russian 3M 54 Klub is fired thru 533 MM torpedo tubes. I don't know about other such systems

These "tubes", IIRC, are simply chambers that can be pressurized enough to pop their contents out into the water, and then as they break the surface, other engines fire and send them on their way. Isn't that still correct? They don't fire rocket engines inside a submarine!

Yes but the only exception seems to be German IDAS Air defense missile, which will be fired directly from torpedo tube rather that being launched from launch capsule.

-Nitin

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 20:40

narayanan wrote: Also, I see that Arihant which can serve as a mini-Boomer is 6000 tons, short dark and rice-eating, whereas the Akula is 12000 tons, but does not have VL tubes. Can you fire SLCMs through the torpedo tubes? AFAIK, SLCMs are if anything smaller and lighter than torpedoes, so I don't see why not, except that the SLCM may have to be modified to swim like a dolphin and pop out at a shallow angle, then fire engines and zoom out.

Otherwise, the Akula vs. Arihant size comparison seems inverted. Why should an attack sub be so big?

Yes the Akula in Soviet times were capable and carried the SS-N-21 SLCM which was a 2,500 Km range LACM with 200Kt Nuke Warhead. So the 650 mm TT can fire cruise missile and in case of Nerpa it will come with Klub system which can be fired from the 533 mm TT just like Kilo does now.

As to why Attack subs needs to be big , A bigger subs allows you to add in more quitening measure and ding dong , like active noise cancellation on Akula 2 made the sub 2 m longer , a larger subs allows you to carry more Torpedoes like 50 in case of Seawolf SSN and 40 plus in case of Akula , which mean they can be at the frontline for a longer period of time without having the need to do quick reload.

A torpedo can always be deceived by countermeasures or decoys , so more the merrier , so you would like to fire 2 -3 torpedoes at a target just for the same reason using different direction of attack and/or tactics.

The Russian Subs tend to be larger being double hull , but even Arihant is a double hull sub , double hull allows you to incorporate 4 way silencing system in case of Akula.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2009 20:51

narayanan , the Ohio SSGN conversion program is not a good example because these subs were suppose to be thrown out after a post cold war review and some chaps came up with the idea lets make some good use of it rather then throw it with tons of reason and so was born Ohio SSGN , the tin heads in Russia are also planning to convert 2 of the remaining 3 Typhoon into SSGN.

I feel it is good example, Think of the massive power it carries with it when loaded with 98 tomahawk missiles. A sub like that can ward off our Navy's worry of Gwadar port being built by chinese and also chinese secret base...

Besides, it is actually one which gives the true power of LACM to Subs. The classic SSN other wise restricts itself to anti sub and anti ship role.

Also, Oscar Class submarine of Russian navy also carries around 24 P 700 Granit missile in both anti ship and SLCM versions

-Nitin

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 21:00

533 mm is pretty small - the SLCM will itself have to be very thin SDRE type.

That's a severe limitation.

Thanks for the explanation about the size being needed for noise reduction. But in all the stories I read (which invariably end with the Akula becoming shaheed

) it's the maneuvering capability that makes all the difference. 12,000 tons is big (note: INS Vikrant was less than 16,000 tons!), and precludes hiding in a lot of interesting places.

One related question: Do they put active armor on these things, like on tanks? I have heard that the most effective underwater explosions are those which inflate a bubble, whose collapse generates a supersonic (I mean for water

) jet, and pokes a hole in the hull. Hurts my head to try to figure out how that would happen, but I know it does. maybe they use the same technology that the Paki Shoe Bomber's soles did. Seems like active armor may be able to stop that?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 21:01

Nitin , may be I did not put it the right way , these subs were any way suppose to be scrapped after post cold war review , but they just made better use of it , but it is not at the cost of their SSBN deterrence.

If you have between 1 to 3 Arihant types in next 8 -10 years or so , the mix payload perhaps is not a wise choice.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 21:04

nrshah wrote: Besides, it is actually one which gives the true power of LACM to Subs. The classic SSN other wise restricts itself to anti sub and anti ship role.

No, the debate here is not whether it makes sense to have multi-purpose subs and increase the capabiltiy of SSNs, it is on whether it makes sense to have a dedicated boat to be the deterrence (which I think is yes) or use that boat in many roles.

I think just the fact that our Arihants would be boats that no one would need to know anything about till a major Indian city is nuked. This alone would preclude its use as any other platform.

Please note that Arihants would directly be under the PMs command, even though manned by IN folks. This means that ALL their operational details would be straight top down.

I dont think this channel is either feasible/practical or desirable when the boat is meant to be used a conventional bomb truck for tactical roles.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Jul 2009 21:07

narayanan wrote:533 mm is pretty small - the SLCM will itself have to be very thin SDRE type. That's a severe limitation.

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

All Akulas are armed with four 533 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 53 torpedoes or the SS-N-15 Starfish missile, and four 650 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 65 torpedoes or the SS-N-16 Stallion missile.

Whereas the Russian Navy's Akula-II submarine is equipped with 28 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a striking range of 3,000 kilometers, the Indian version was reportedly expected to be armed with the 300 km range 3M-54 Klub nuclear-capable missiles.[7]. Missiles with ranges greater than 300 kilometers cannot be exported due to arms control restrictions, since Russia is a signatory to the MTCR treaty.

Not SDRE, no siree not at all.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jul 2009 21:10

Tanaji its not escalation but restoring imbalance. There is no evidence that TSP or PRC for that matter has demated payloads.

To all arguing on TN and karela, the more important is the delivery vehicle of long range. All else is passe at this time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jul 2009 21:15

narayanan wrote:533 mm is pretty small - the SLCM will itself have to be very thin SDRE type. That's a severe limitation.

They can still fire Klub type cruise missile , and Tomahawk can be launched from 533 mm TT of USN fast attack subs , though now they have dedicated VLS tubes.

SDRE can develop Tomahawk types which can be fired from 533mm TT , dont we have one under development ?

Thanks for the explanation about the size being needed for noise reduction. But in all the stories I read (which invariably end with the Akula becoming shaheed ) it's the maneuvering capability that makes all the difference. 12,000 tons is big, and precludes hiding in a lot of interesting places.

A Torpedo can always outmaneuver a submarine , so that point is not quite valid , movies apart.

The only submarine that could outmaneuver a Torpedo in real life was the Soviet alfa SSN which could outmaneuver the torpedoes of its time as demonstrated in exercises.

One related question: Do they put active armor on these things, like on tanks? I have heard that the most effective underwater explosions are those which inflate a bubble, whose collapse generates a supersonic (I mean for water ) jet, and pokes a hole in the hull. Hurts my head to try to figure out how that would happen, but I know it does. maybe they use the same technology that the Paki Shoe Bomber's soles did. Seems like active armor may be able to stop that?

Active armor ? not sure I have heard of that for submarine.

Yes the under the kneel explosion is used to that effect by torpedo to break ship into two half.

But a shaped charged was considered to be good enough to penetrate the double hull , the pressure does the rest.

Well one still has the option of 0.1kt Nuclear warhead for Torpedoes

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Jul 2009 21:18

I have to disagree with all u experts. Whether I had 1 or 100, my preference would be the same: make them all multipurpose and scatter them on patrol in tough times. Let Hong Shin or the tinpot dictators sit and wonder whether I have nX SLBMs or 0.7nX + 0.6n SLCMs, or 0.3n SOF teams, or something else. To get 99.95% chance of locating 2n nuclear subs, they would have expend far more resources than to locate n. And if they have to actually fire SLBMs, well, it's all over anyway, but a salvo coming in from 2n locations is vastly more likely to reach the targets than one coming in from n locations. So the mix is far more deterrent (assuming that I have some measure of privacy at the loading dock).

You should be glad that I am not the one paid to be smart enough to figure out deterrence right.

P.S. I agree with ramana: the range (and submerged endurance) of the delivery vehicle - I assume you mean the sub not the rocket - is the big game-changer.