An alternative to SSBN ?

[plugwater]

 

[sayareakd]

this was posted by member of BR some time back.

 

[civfanatic]

Brilliant idea. You should apply for MoD position.

 

[plugwater]

this was posted by member of BR some time back.

Ok saya. I came across this picture so posted this.

Brilliant idea. You should apply for MoD position.

Not my idea mate. Someone else's.

 

[sayareakd]

if you want cheap idea to be perfect SSBN here it is

combine the two and put it inside our marine time boundary.

 

[p2prada]

Google Valhalla Missile Silo."

Underwater missile bases exist.

 

[Singh]

I have a fundamental issue with fixed bases, they are fixed. With a SSBN you have a survivable mobile platform, also extend the range of your missiles and it is a better deterrent as the enemy will not even think of neutralizing/saturating your bases.

PS: India has missile bases in the Himalayas, as per our nuclear doctrine those Himalayan bases will survive any and every nuclear attack.

 

[pmaitra]

^^ I agree with the above post.

While the idea of fixed silos is good, and can be in territorial waters or in land, having submarine based launch capability adds:

• Mobility.
• Survivability.

 

[plugwater]

I have a fundamental issue with fixed bases, they are fixed. With a SSBN you have a survivable mobile platform, also extend the range of your missiles and it is a better deterrent as the enemy will not even think of neutralizing/saturating your bases.

PS: India has missile bases in the Himalayas, as per our nuclear doctrine those Himalayan bases will survive any and every nuclear attack.

It is also cheap and No ASW threat. We can use this in some lakes in north east so it ll not affect the range.

It is good to have multiple options imo.

 

[bengalraider]

Stupid idea! an SLBM is more expensive than a land based IRBM/ICBM by virtue of the cost of propellant i would much rather build a fixed hardened base with an IRBM on land completely than have a tunnel jutting out into the seabed.also a hardened silo under 200 ft of solid granite is far more likely to survive a direct nuclear strike than one under a lake/sea bed.

 

[sayareakd]

i hate missile being put in fixed location that will make them target of any nuclear strike, missile should be mobile, if this can be achieved cheaply it will be better.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Building an under water tunnel will cost in the billions if the tunnel is 300ft deep and 3Kms long it will take a lot of money and manpower for an static position like that and is not an viable alternative, having an moving Submarine which is harder to detect is the first best choice for counter strike.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

combine the two and put it inside our marine time boundary.

Saya explain what is their in the image? Is it an nuclear torpedo?

 

[sayareakd]

Saya explain what is their in the image? Is it an nuclear torpedo?

it is unmanned sub, made by DRDO.

 

[nrj]

Saya explain what is their in the image? Is it an nuclear torpedo?

http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=12133

 

[Apollyon]

PS: India has missile bases in the Himalayas, as per our nuclear doctrine those Himalayan bases will survive any and every nuclear attack.

What do you meant by "Missile Base" ? India dont have Silo Based Ballistic Missiles, we have BM based on road and rail mobile launcher onlee

 

[trackwhack]

Any missile storage facility is a missile base. Land mobile does not mean they are always roaming around with warhead mated missiles. A silo does not make a missile base and the lack of one does not rule out the site being a missile base. Whats in the Himalayas are deep caves that store our weapons that will survive any nuclear attack.

 

[cloud]

Hello Guys.. Finally joined the forum...


On topic: How about making a bigger(Or biggest :cool2: ) submarine with 3-4 bigger AIP modules only(diesel power only for backup) AKA SSBA... It doesn't need to go far deep into ocean and can stay in Indian ocean. Also going by the technology it could be even more stealthier(no radiation, more silent) and can have Max speed of 10-12 knots. It Should be able to contain around 24-36 K15 types missile. can have basic level of anti aircraft weapons(like being developed in Germany I think) later on, although may be not required. Also for this to be true we need solid defense for our costal area which anyway should be first priority.

The main advantage will be -

1. Less Maintenance cost
2. More silent and stealthy
3. Almost half the cost of acquisition of actual SSBN(AFAIK nuclear reactor will amount for half of the cost of subs)
4. Safer then nuclear subs?, at least to operate??
5. If it has Multiple AIP modules then it should be able to stay under water for many months then anyway you have come up for food supplies etc.
6.Saving uranium and make more blooms

Disadvantages -

1. Less range (If we are going to include the K4 or K5 series, from Indian ocean I guess they should be able to target anywhere in the world).
2. Lesser Speed - SSBNs are supposed to be hidden away from enemy and in war time only need to come up once to fire the salvos. If any SSBN is detected from opponent SSNs underwater then it has pretty less chances of surviving anyway. In case of SSBA, it will more stealthy and quieter, but at the same time can not evade enemy SSNs which are trying to catchup based on other information(of a few hours ago).


Also why carbon fiber has not been used in making subs(at least in double hull subs, with outer layer can be made from Carbon fiber or composites and inner hull with the steal). This should reduce the cost as well as safety will also not be compromised as I can see underwater it is not going to burn and if inner hull is of steal then it should not compromise the safety as well.

Advantage:

1. Very minimal magnetic signature.
2. less corrosion, better life, less maintenance cost.
3. Light weight?
4. Also AFIAK carbon fiber structures are also easy to modify?? (confirm please if otherwise).

We need to focus on nuclear propulsion only for SSNs as they are the once which will need to go deep into enemy territory and hunt their subs and ships.

Also I wonder why can't we have 40-50 SSKs (total cost should be in the 10-15B$ range). Why can't MOD once and for all clear a deal. These subs will serve for atleast 3 to 4 decades. hence if the budget is divided every year it need only at max 500 millions including operating and upgrading cost..

 

[Snuggy321]

Never heard of this idea, really interesting. But once the position is known, the whole base would loose its point

 

[Singh]

@cloud
I guess it has to do with it being try and tested. I am not a materials guy, but from what I know. There are huge compressive loads, and the hull should retain its structure.
The reason why they don't want subs to go to deep, is because then they have to redesign everything from groundsup. Probably that's why they have stuck to Steel.

PS: Russians made Titanium Subs in the 70s.