Indian nuclear submarines

[captscooby81]

As the Russians have helped in the ATV project especially RUBIN in the Nuclear reactor and critical technologies on the INS arihant .. Don't you think now the Russians now in and out about the Sub and they know how to look at for it where its hiding in the ocean .. The russians are still our friends but what if they goes into the chinese arms in future wont they share all these details to score some brownie points with Chinnis??

yeah confirm by the whatsap DFI group elders....................Its our baby with tubes............

 

[sayareakd]

As the Russians have helped in the ATV project especially RUBIN in the Nuclear reactor and critical technologies on the INS arihant .. Don't you think now the Russians now in and out about the Sub and they know how to look at for it where its hiding in the ocean .. The russians are still our friends but what if they goes into the chinese arms in future wont they share all these details to score some brownie points with Chinnis??

Not to worry, ATV will work in Bay of Bangal, next in line will be bigger subs they will rule Indian Ocean. Next subs after Arihant class will have bigger reactor. Made locally, without any outside help or others looking at it.

 

[republic_roi97]

As the Russians have helped in the ATV project especially RUBIN in the Nuclear reactor and critical technologies on the INS arihant .. Don't you think now the Russians now in and out about the Sub and they know how to look at for it where its hiding in the ocean .. The russians are still our friends but what if they goes into the chinese arms in future wont they share all these details to score some brownie points with Chinnis??

Well do you think that people sitting at the top are basically fools. They would have done everything possible to keep things under the wraps. The ship was made with russian help not with russians.

 

[busesaway]

I think India needs to stop importing weapons and military hardware from western countries, because it's simply too expensive. We are better off sticking to domestically built hardware, which would allow our scientists and engineers to work on projects and gain knowledge, and save India a shitload of money.

In terms of China, I think the country is simply far too powerful economically and militarily. We need to diplomatically come to an arrangement that sees China swing away from the Middle East, and supportive of the cultural independence of Tibet, and more reserved in terms of aggression against foriegn powers.

I genuinely don't think that India will enter any war other than one against Muslims and the Middle East. We should use our friendly relations with the West in order to counter Islamists, Pakistan, and the greater Middle East.

 

[busesaway]

As the Russians have helped in the ATV project especially RUBIN in the Nuclear reactor and critical technologies on the INS arihant .. Don't you think now the Russians now in and out about the Sub and they know how to look at for it where its hiding in the ocean .. The russians are still our friends but what if they goes into the chinese arms in future wont they share all these details to score some brownie points with Chinnis??

1) I don't think its bad if India and China work together. I think India needs to come to a diplomatic arrangement with the country that sees it pull out of its support for Maoists, stop "posturing" along the border, stop supporting the Middle East and Muslims, and provide some cultural independence to Tibet.

2) I think Russia is better than a western country because its cheaper. The aim should be to build as much as possible without outside help, and where it's possible, to source aid from places like Russia where it would be cheaper.

India has plenty of scientists that could help it create things like nuclear reactors and submarines. We should aim to broaden our knowledge by investing in domestic research and development, rather than importing lots of military equipment for a fantasy war with China.

 

[captscooby81]

Will our next sub under this Arihant class will even be half size of this giant beauty ..This is one super big crazy submarine.Russian Typhoon class submarine

 

[Chinmoy]

Will our next sub under this Arihant class will even be half size of this giant beauty ..This is one super big crazy submarine.Russian Typhoon class submarine

View attachment 16088 View attachment 16089

Ofcourse. Typhoon is a double hull structure, whereas ours would be single hull. It would exactly be half the size ... :biggrin2:

 

[Khagesh]

Cylindrical (also nearly so) objects will give a more than proportionate increase in volume for every unit increase in radius (or draught and beam).

Having said that Typhoon is not one sub. Typhoon is 2 subs laid side by side with some other hulls attached to these and all of them finally covered over by a supra-hull. So the full benefits of the volume increase are not available. Which goes to show the limitations of this approach to building massive subs.

But again, there is no need to duplicate a lot of systems for 2 subs laid side by side. Which again offers volume benefits.

So considering all compromises, Typhoons still end up giving a far bigger volume increase per unit size increase. Ultimately what really matters is not the amount of metal you haul or the amount of water you displace. What really matters is the number and size of SLBMs you will be deploying, quitely.

Case in point:
Typhoons (24K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 80+ tons each.
Borei (14K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 40 ton each.

Even if we make a sub the dimensions of a Borei class the tyrany of the mathematics will not allow us to actually claim to be half the size of Typhoons, in terms of volume, which really matters. We may claim to be half the size in terms of weight only, but that really does not matter.

All considered however, in my opinion we should not waste time attempting a Typhoon, even though it is a circus stopper. If we can fund 2 subs then better to have these 2 subs at different locations instead of being tied up together and co-located at one place. The risk increase manifold. With 2 subs the enemy at best will be able to find only one and at the same time will be forced to split its ASW resources over vast stretches of the ocean.

The bigger SSBNs that will get made later, in our yards, will be world class in almost all respects, except may be in a few areas. And the whole package will be much more impervious/impenetrable, to foreign powers. The reactor for example will get bigger, not smaller, there will be a lesser miniaturization penalty involved. So things are only set to get better.

 

[sayareakd]

Ofcourse. Typhoon is a double hull structure, whereas ours would be single hull. It would exactly be half the size ... :biggrin2:

Who told you its single ? They were building with double rings........ when last they showed me.

 

[scatterStorm]

Cylindrical (also nearly so) objects will give a more than proportionate increase in volume for every unit increase in radius (or draught and beam).

Having said that Typhoon is not one sub. Typhoon is 2 subs laid side by side with some other hulls attached to these and all of them finally covered over by a supra-hull. So the full benefits of the volume increase are not available. Which goes to show the limitations of this approach to building massive subs.

But again, there is no need to duplicate a lot of systems for 2 subs laid side by side. Which again offers volume benefits.

So considering all compromises, Typhoons still end up giving a far bigger volume increase per unit size increase. Ultimately what really matters is not the amount of metal you haul or the amount of water you displace. What really matters is the number and size of SLBMs you will be deploying, quitely.

Case in point:
Typhoons (24K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 80+ tons each.
Borei (14K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 40 ton each.

Even if we make a sub the dimensions of a Borei class the tyrany of the mathematics will not allow us to actually claim to be half the size of Typhoons, in terms of volume, which really matters. We may claim to be half the size in terms of weight only, but that really does not matter.

All considered however, in my opinion we should not waste time attempting a Typhoon, even though it is a circus stopper. If we can fund 2 subs then better to have these 2 subs at different locations instead of being tied up together and co-located at one place. The risk increase manifold. With 2 subs the enemy at best will be able to find only one and at the same time will be forced to split its ASW resources over vast stretches of the ocean.

The bigger SSBNs that will get made later, in our yards, will be world class in almost all respects, except may be in a few areas. And the whole package will be much more impervious/impenetrable, to foreign powers. The reactor for example will get bigger, not smaller, there will be a lesser miniaturization penalty involved. So things are only set to get better.

Borei is considered "blackhole" as per NATO :biggrin2:

 

[captscooby81]

Well i think that makes sense as our adversaries are just next to our IOR and Russians had to cross Atlantic and Pacific so Typhoon makes sense for them ..Well is the Double hull Subs don t have more advantage over single hull especially in hiding the reactor noise from getting detected ...

Arihant has just 4 silo which can max help us carry 8-SLBM which is really not going to help us if we want to take china ..With such a huge land area where they nicely spread everything from east coast to all the way to western borders ..Hope the Next two Subs have more Silo s and also time we get A5 submarine version which can cover 5000 km range so that we can place our sub even further from the chinese reach and attack them ..With Arihant we almost has to take it into the SCS before we can even think of launching an attack ..

Lets see how the SSBN program progress from here on and how close we go to Borei or Yasen class Subs if not anywhere close to Typhoon or Ohio class

Cylindrical (also nearly so) objects will give a more than proportionate increase in volume for every unit increase in radius (or draught and beam).

Having said that Typhoon is not one sub. Typhoon is 2 subs laid side by side with some other hulls attached to these and all of them finally covered over by a supra-hull. So the full benefits of the volume increase are not available. Which goes to show the limitations of this approach to building massive subs.

But again, there is no need to duplicate a lot of systems for 2 subs laid side by side. Which again offers volume benefits.

So considering all compromises, Typhoons still end up giving a far bigger volume increase per unit size increase. Ultimately what really matters is not the amount of metal you haul or the amount of water you displace. What really matters is the number and size of SLBMs you will be deploying, quitely.

Case in point:
Typhoons (24K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 80+ tons each.
Borei (14K ton surfaced) carry 20 SLBM of 40 ton each.

Even if we make a sub the dimensions of a Borei class the tyrany of the mathematics will not allow us to actually claim to be half the size of Typhoons, in terms of volume, which really matters. We may claim to be half the size in terms of weight only, but that really does not matter.

All considered however, in my opinion we should not waste time attempting a Typhoon, even though it is a circus stopper. If we can fund 2 subs then better to have these 2 subs at different locations instead of being tied up together and co-located at one place. The risk increase manifold. With 2 subs the enemy at best will be able to find only one and at the same time will be forced to split its ASW resources over vast stretches of the ocean.

The bigger SSBNs that will get made later, in our yards, will be world class in almost all respects, except may be in a few areas. And the whole package will be much more impervious/impenetrable, to foreign powers. The reactor for example will get bigger, not smaller, there will be a lesser miniaturization penalty involved. So things are only set to get better.

 

[scatterStorm]

Well i think that makes sense as our adversaries are just next to our IOR and Russians had to cross Atlantic and Pacific so Typhoon makes sense for them ..Well is the Double hull Subs don t have more advantage over single hull especially in hiding the reactor noise from getting detected ...

Arihant has just 4 silo which can max help us carry 8-SLBM which is really not going to help us if we want to take china ..With such a huge land area where they nicely spread everything from east coast to all the way to western borders ..Hope the Next two Subs have more Silo s and also time we get A5 submarine version which can cover 5000 km range so that we can place our sub even further from the chinese reach and attack them ..With Arihant we almost has to take it into the SCS before we can even think of launching an attack ..

Lets see how the SSBN program progress from here on and how close we go to Borei or Yasen class Subs if not anywhere close to Typhoon or Ohio class

Are those SLBM MIRV capable yet, I think it still in development right with the "K missile series program" right?
If war happens say in next year with "failed state of Pakistan" we are still firing Brahmos right?

 

[zala09]

Will our next sub under this Arihant class will even be half size of this giant beauty ..This is one super big crazy submarine.Russian Typhoon class submarine

View attachment 16088 View attachment 16089

I THINK TYPHOON IS VERY BIG SUB......

AS COLD WAR ERA.. AT THAT TIME ..

like a GIANT

 

[captscooby81]

Well not sure its INS arihant or Aridaman

 

[Khagesh]

Its photoshop only.............

 

[captscooby81]

well how are so sure about it just cross verified with someone who was involved in its construction he had confirmed its ATV

Its photoshop only.............

 

[Khagesh]

well how are so sure about it just cross verified with someone who was involved in its construction he had confirmed its ATV

Regards the images, they are the same except for the sailors planted or deleted towards the aft.

Regards the design, it is certainly not the Arihant (the first of the series). The subdued hump just aft of the conning tower is missing. The same hump can be expected to be same length or longer in the Aridaman. Additionally the conning tower is at the wrong place on the hull. Arihant ATV has its conning tower right on the forward slope caused by that subdued hump.

The two images you posted/reposted, I don't know what it is but they are not the ATV series.

 

[bole]

Well not sure its INS arihant or Aridaman

View attachment 16117
View attachment 16118

Seems to be Triomphant-class submarine

 

[Chinmoy]

Who told you its single ? They were building with double rings........ when last they showed me.

I wonder why it needs to be double hauled? It would have double the launch tube then Arihant, and that explains its larger size. But then again its powered by a single reactor. Why do one need a double hull for that? Typhoon class had two reactors and that explains its double hull structure, but I can't understand double hull in Aridaman.

 

[captscooby81]

@sayareakd So we have been testing K-4 from INS Arhiant since March 2016 ...

c. The K-4 was reportedly tested twice in March 2016. The first test was on March 7, and the second on March 31. The March 31 test was the first conducted from the INS Arihant ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).