Indian nuclear submarines

[Bheeshma]

B-O5 is just K-15 or sagarika missile.

 

[arnabmit]

So "BO-5" is yet another, and at least to me, hitherto unknown missile. How many more such alphabet-soup missiles do we have?

BO-5 is the prototype name of K-15 Sagarika

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

So "BO-5" is yet another, and at least to me, hitherto unknown missile. How many more such alphabet-soup missiles do we have?

saar, code name of k15 is b05 K Missile family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
India successfully test-fires underwater missile - The Hindu: Mobile Edition

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

INS ARIHANT: A 'GIANT STRIDE' FOR INDIA? – ANALYSIS | idrw.org
.
ps: this article is total bs

 

[Warhawk]

INS ARIHANT: A 'GIANT STRIDE' FOR INDIA? – ANALYSIS | idrw.org
.
ps: this article is total bs

INS Arihant's 83 MW reactor just went critical after a whole lot of sea trials, according to the news. Extrapolating from known data on Russian submarines and their reactors - the Russian project 971 (NATO: Akula) class has a 190 MW reactor but turbines that are rated at just 32MW, and the blisteringly fast Project 705 (NATO: Alfa) class has a set of turbines rated at 30 MW for a 155MW reactor plant.
Going by the roughly 20 percent power rule here, the turbines on the Arihant are likely to be around 15 MW, or about 20,000 horsepower. Rating them at higher than that doesn't seem to make much sense, and the figures placing them at 47,000 hp just seem ludicrous - that sort of power would propel the Arihant's estimated 6000 ton bulk past 37 knots given known submarine performance figures.
A lower power rating and a speed in the range of 24-28 knots seems far more likely (and the figure listed on Wiki is indeed 24 knots). A ballistic missile submarine isn't meant to sprint across the oceans - it's meant to be a ghost, running silent and deep, popping up to deliver its apocalyptic cargo when the time calls.
On the Wings of a White Swan: INS Arihant - an analysis


Submarine reactor was built from land-based prototype

Kalpakkam (Tamil Nadu), Aug 2 (IANS) INS Arihant, India's first indigenously designed and built nuclear powered submarine launched a week ago, is energised by a power pack that was developed from a land-based prototype version, a nuclear scientist revealed here Sunday.
The scientists' team was given the mandate to develop a land-based prototype power pack for a submarine and development and construction of a nuclear steam generating system for the sea-going version,
There is a sea of difference between designing a nuclear power pack to propel a submarine and a land-based atomic power station, Srikumar Banerjee, director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and member of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), told reporters here.
The 82.5 MW nuclear reactor for submarine has been designed here by PRP Centre - PRP originally stood for Plutonium Reprocessing Project - under the BARC.
The PRP Centre is located inside the Kalpakkam nuclear enclave, 45 km from Chennai, housing various atomic energy related entities.
"While a land-based atomic power plant gets support from the grid and others, a nuclear power pack in a submarine does not have such fallback systems," Banerjee said.
He said the major challenges were miniaturisation of the land-based plant to fit into the confined space of a submarine and also making it lightweight but strong enough to endure the shock due to depth discharge.
"The reactor while withstanding the pitch and roll of a submarine should also be capable of accelerating and decelerating at a quick pace - unlike a land-based power plant which would ramp up speed in a gradual manner," he added.
To generate power, the steam turbine should be operated at 3,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) whereas the nuclear submarine propulsion turbine will be operated at variable speed of 0 to 4,000 rpms.
The reactor designed for a long fuelling cycle time is capable of remaining under water for an extended period, the sortie time being essentially dictated by the endurance of the crew.
The land-based version kept here was conceived and built as a technology demonstrator for the compact pressurised water reactor with a load following capability.
Also known as 'half boat', the entire propulsion plant with primary, secondary, electrical and propulsion systems along with its integrated control was packed in the aft end of the land-based submarine hull designed and built specifically for this purpose.
While in sea the reactor supplies super-heated steam to the propulsion plant to run the submarine, at the PRP Centre the propulsion power is absorbed in the dynamometer which in turn is cooled by sea water.

Banerjee said major components of the submarine reactor were made by domestic industries.
"The reactor vessel is made of special grade steel by Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi, steam generator by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), pressure valves were made by Audco India, Chennai, and others," he added.
New materials of construction and new technologies were used in building the reactor. The uranium enriched metallic fuel is new too.
There are around 13 fuel assemblies with each assembly having 348 fuel pins.
"It is not just building a nuclear reactor to power a submarine. For us, it is capacity building in the country to get into high technology areas," said AEC chairman Anil Kakodkar.
PRP facility director Sekhar Basu said the centre will now be the training ground for personnel planning to operate reactors in submarines apart from carrying out research activities.

Submarine reactor was built from land-based prototype (With Image) - Thaindian News

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Indian nuke subs game-changer in next war - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
.
@Warhawk definitely arihant have some faults which will be corrected in aridhaman but it will be a hand changer against pakistan

 

[Sea Eagle]

Submarine reactor was built from land-based prototype

Submarine reactor was built from land-based prototype (With Image) - Thaindian News

The Hindu : Front Page : PWR building shows indigenous capability, says Kakodkar

The photo of the land based reactor in the above link looks very similar to the SW1.

Another picture of Indian reactor
INS Arihant reactor to be made critical next week - Economic Times


The S1W land based prototype reactor from which the reactor for USS Nautilus derived. So IMO the Arihant's reactor design is based on this and Russians might have helped to perfect it and fit it into the Arihant.

Thanks To Will Davis for this observation

 

[Sea Eagle]

The S1W land based prototype reactor.

 

[bennedose]

Both reactors look similar because both were designed to be housed in a cylindrical submarine shaped and submarine sized tube. That is the only thing common in both pictures. There is no indication of size and size is everything - so a superficial similarity as in "Both reactors look like tubes" means absolutely nothing.

 

[Sea Eagle]

NEW DELHI: The weapons systems for the country's nuclear triad, including submarine launched ballistic missiles, are "fully ready" for deployment,DRDO chief Avinash Chander said today.
Addressing a gathering at an IDSA event, he said the nuclear reactor on board the indigenously developed
INS Arihant nuclear submarine
is also critical and is running on its "full power" before it is launched for sea trials.
The weapons for the nuclear triad are "either fully developed or are ready to be deployed," Chander said.
The nuclear triad is the capability to launch a nuclear weapon from sea, air and land. India will complete it once the Arihant is operational giving it the option to retaliate to nuclear strike through submarine launched BO-5 missiles.
The Arihant is expected to be launched for sea trials in next few months.
The Agni series missiles can be used to carry out attacks from land while some of the IAF airrcraft are also capable of launching nuclear attacks.
The DRDO completed the development of the over 700km-range BO-5 missiles recently and they would be fired from the Arihant during its sea trials.
The organisation is also preparing to develop the longer range K-4 underwater missile in near future and some of its trials have been completed successfully.

Nuclear triad weapons ready for deployment: DRDO - The Economic Times nuclear triad

 

[right wing]

Guys just asking..cant these cylindrical reactors be used to power emergency underground tunnels n bunkers in guise of hydroelectric dams..was seeing we hav more than 100kms of tunnel in himalayn mountains ..officially as hydro project head race n tail tunnels..nd most hav underground powerhouses..cant they be used as bases with nuclear reactor of compressed type??

 

[bhramos]

Guys just asking..cant these cylindrical reactors be used to power emergency underground tunnels n bunkers in guise of hydroelectric dams..was seeing we hav more than 100kms of tunnel in himalayn mountains ..officially as hydro project head race n tail tunnels..nd most hav underground powerhouses..cant they be used as bases with nuclear reactor of compressed type??

nice idea, only experts and strategy based knowledge people can answer....

 

[bennedose]

Guys just asking..cant these cylindrical reactors be used to power emergency underground tunnels n bunkers in guise of hydroelectric dams..was seeing we hav more than 100kms of tunnel in himalayn mountains ..officially as hydro project head race n tail tunnels..nd most hav underground powerhouses..cant they be used as bases with nuclear reactor of compressed type??

With respect. may I point out that hydro electric dams require a river and a dam. If there is a river and a dam you can have hydroelectric power anyway and you don't need a nuclear reactor. If you have no river and no dam, you can have a nuclear reactor but you cannot make it look like a river and a dam so you cannot have a nuclear reactor "under the guise" of hydroelectric power.

Finally, these small reactors are difficult to miniaturize. Those tunnels can get an electric supply from cables from sources far away.

 

[right wing]

With respect. may I point out that hydro electric dams require a river and a dam. If there is a river and a dam you can have hydroelectric power anyway and you don't need a nuclear reactor. If you have no river and no dam, you can have a nuclear reactor but you cannot make it look like a river and a dam so you cannot have a nuclear reactor "under the guise" of hydroelectric power.

Finally, these small reactors are difficult to miniaturize. Those tunnels can get an electric supply from cables from sources far away.

what i am stating is this network of tunnels..can be used for secret nuclear bases..aim was nt generating elec..but keeping nuclear powerd bases in himalayas..and nuclear reactors can be miniarurisd enough..infact those tunnels r far big in dia to hold a nuke sub and kilometres in length..even hav rail tracks..see in skyscrapercity.com

 

[right wing]

what i am stating is this network of tunnels..can be used for secret nuclear bases..aim was nt generating elec..but keeping nuclear powerd bases in himalayas..and nuclear reactors can be miniarurisd enough..infact those tunnels r far big in dia to hold a nuke sub and kilometres in length..even hav rail tracks..see in skyscrapercity.com

and hydo power can never assure u emergency 24*7 power

 

[Pulkit]

Guys just asking..cant these cylindrical reactors be used to power emergency underground tunnels n bunkers in guise of hydroelectric dams..was seeing we hav more than 100kms of tunnel in himalayn mountains ..officially as hydro project head race n tail tunnels..nd most hav underground powerhouses..cant they be used as bases with nuclear reactor of compressed type??

even if it is possible ... what will be its benefits?What are you trying to convey...

 

[bennedose]

what i am stating is this network of tunnels..can be used for secret nuclear bases..aim was nt generating elec..but keeping nuclear powerd bases in himalayas..and nuclear reactors can be miniarurisd enough..infact those tunnels r far big in dia to hold a nuke sub and kilometres in length..even hav rail tracks..see in skyscrapercity.com

No doubt.

But why do you want a miniature nuclear plant exactly where the tunnels are? How will it help to have the cost and complexity simply for a tunnel which can get power from a dozen different sources. via cables You don't need a nuclear plant in every tunnel. And if you are going to supply power from one miniature plant to tunnels many km away then why not have the power source safe and far away, supplying a network of tunnels hundreds of km apart?

A proper normal sized plant can be built 100 or even 500 km away and supply power via cables. You can have extra, hidden redundant cables so that they can never all be disconnected simultaneously. A miniature tunnel sized nuclear plant required 90%+ enriched Uranium and is more use in a sub. Not in a power rector that can manage with less than 20% enrichment.

Enriching Uranium (via centrifuges) requires one heck of a lot of power. It is a waste making 90% enriched Uranium unless you are going to use it for bombs, or nuclear powered ships or submarines. For power supply you can use Uranium that is not enriched to that level.

 

[right wing]

even if it is possible ... what will be its benefits?What are you trying to convey...

It can provide us missile n armanent storing bases..away from pryin eyes in himalayan depths..and also close enough to strike china n pak..but equally secure from counter attacks...chinese slrdy hav such bases in tibet n central china..why shldnt we if we r anyway diggin 100kms in the mountains..making tunnels which r just too big to be calld headrace tunnels..and that too from50 or 200mw projects..quite miniscule...such nuclear bases n hidden shafts r a neccesity..helps to keep u safe for second strike..in case of nuclear attacks n emergencies..

 

[right wing]

No doubt.

But why do you want a miniature nuclear plant exactly where the tunnels are? How will it help to have the cost and complexity simply for a tunnel which can get power from a dozen different sources. via cables You don't need a nuclear plant in every tunnel. And if you are going to supply power from one miniature plant to tunnels many km away then why not have the power source safe and far away, supplying a network of tunnels hundreds of km apart?

A proper normal sized plant can be built 100 or even 500 km away and supply power via cables. You can have extra, hidden redundant cables so that they can never all be disconnected simultaneously. A miniature tunnel sized nuclear plant required 90%+ enriched Uranium and is more use in a sub. Not in a power rector that can manage with less than 20% enrichment.

Enriching Uranium (via centrifuges) requires one heck of a lot of power. It is a waste making 90% enriched Uranium unless you are going to use it for bombs, or nuclear powered ships or submarines. For power supply you can use Uranium that is not enriched to that level.

..most projects r closely huddled..and i am just askin whether we can hav such miniature nuclear power plants..not necessarily the one type used in sub..i wud not prescribe cables..a nuclear base shld be self sufficient..shld generate own power..cables from outside..has several disadvantages..loss of stealth..and dependancy on outside world..and only 3 or 4 such bases r enough.we dont need a huge network..it wud also hav uranium storage n enrichmnt facility..besides hidden silos..n emergency survival infra for second strike

 

[right wing]

And as for water n uranium enrichment power..that can come from the hydro project of which these tunnels r a part..so two things can be there simultaneously..this is exixting in several chinese n russian projects..n even in alaska..where hydro projects..lead way to such tunnelld bases..general times run on grid power..emergency switch to own reactor..nd india is building small heavy water reactors since ages