Indian nuclear submarines

[Yusuf]

Sorry it is not 100 Kms, but 10 Kilometers., the highest range possible is 13kms.

At 13 kms it's not exactly a carrier destroyer. It will be at the bottom before it comes close to a carrier to release the Shkval. I think we need more info on it. There were news that the Chinese had bought them sometime back.

 

[prahladh]

Ajay, buying is not a never ending process. Once we buy/produce all the CBG we need we just maintain them for decades.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Why not? I am not assuming look at the damn thing's sketches at livefist, It has no Russian counterpart. Reporters in India are not called DDMs for nothing, They have been saying Charlie all this while, now they claim it to be a Borei influence, I see more resemblence to the Shang Class but with Baliistic misiles. Check it out. Or show me a similar Russian design.There isnt one.

I dunno i am no expert on submarine design. but there may be considerable russian influence on design.

 

[p2prada]

why only littoral waters? and i cannot assume that Indian SSNs will be more noisy than conventional subs.

[/QUOTE]

SSN's use Nuclear energy. Therefore the subs have coolant pumps that continuously make noise. Diesel electric subs rely on electricity. So, they make lesser noise. No SSN can actually be compared to a conventional sub when it comes to stealth.

 

[bhramos]

Is there a longer range guided version of the Shkval coming up? That would take care of the current limitation .

longer rage version of a rocket torpedo is quite imposible i think, if it is best US could also produce 1 type of it,

 

[venom]

India submarine 'threatens peace'

Indian workers (L) paint the conning tower of the INS Kursura, on display as a part of the INS Kurusura Submarine Museum, at Rama Krishna Beach in Visakhapatnam, some 800 kilometers from Hyderabad, on
India has relied mainly on Russian-built submarines until now

India's launch of a nuclear-powered submarine is a threat to regional peace and security, Pakistan has said.

"Pakistan will take appropriate steps to safeguard its security without entering an arms race," foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit said.

The submarine, unveiled at a ceremony on Sunday, will be able to launch missiles at targets 700km away.

At Sunday's launch, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India had no aggressive designs on anyone.

India has become only the sixth country in the world to build its own nuclear-powered submarine - until now only the US, Russia, France, Britain and China had the capability to do so.

'Jeopardising security'

But the move has prompted concern over the border.

"The continued induction of new lethal weapon systems by India is detrimental to regional peace and stability," Mr Basit said.

"Pakistan believes the maintenance of strategic balance is essential for peace and security in the region."

Pakistan navy spokesman, Captain Abid Majeed Butt, told Dawn News television that the launch of the submarine was a "destabilising step".

He said it would "jeopardise the security paradigm of the entire Indian Ocean region" - and warned of a possible nuclear arms race in the region.

At the launch ceremony Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was necessary to keep pace with technological advancements worldwide.

He added that the sea was becoming increasingly relevant to India's security concerns.

This handout photograph released by the Ministry of Defence, wife of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Gursharan Kaur (foreground R), breaks a coconut on the hull of India"s first nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant during a ceremony at Visakhapatnam, some 800 kilometers from Hyderabad, on July 26, 2009.
The submarine was launched at a ceremony on Sunday

The 6,000 tonne Arihant submarine will only be deployed after a few years of trials. But it will be able to launch missiles at targets 700km (437 miles) away.

The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says until now India has been able to launch ballistic missiles only from the air and from land.

Nuclear submarines will add a third dimension to its defence capability.

When it is eventually deployed, the top-secret Arihant will be able to carry 100 sailors on board.

It will be able to stay under water for long periods and thereby increase its chances of remaining undetected.

By contrast, India's ageing conventional diesel-powered submarines need to constantly surface to recharge their batteries.

Our correspondent says the launching of the Arihant is a clear sign that India is looking to blunt the threat from China which has a major naval presence in the region.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India submarine 'threatens peace'

 

[Yusuf]

This sub is not meant for Pakistan. Why is it getting cranky is amusing. Pakistan has to realize that Indias military expansion is not Pak specific.

 

[ajay_ijn]

SSN's use Nuclear energy. Therefore the subs have coolant pumps that continuously make noise. Diesel electric subs rely on electricity. So, they make lesser noise. No SSN can actually be compared to a conventional sub when it comes to stealth.

what about modern Russian and US SSNs? even they are more noisy than SSKs?

 

[prahladh]

I think we should discuss this in another thread " Indian Nuclear submarines".

 

[p2prada]

what about modern Russian and US SSNs? even they are more noisy than SSKs?

Yes, they are all more noisy than modern SSKs. Conventional capabilities have progressed much more than SSN technology. Haven't you seen movies where all the sailors maintain pin-drop silence when trying to hide and listen to other subs.

You sneeze or cough and you are f***ed.

The main advantage SSN has over SSKs are the unlimited range and the ability to stay submerged for long durations of time.

Maybe, future advancements in fuel cell technology can render Nuclear Propulsion obsolete.

 

[venom]

Yes, they are all more noisy than modern SSKs. Conventional capabilities have progressed much more than SSN technology. Haven't you seen movies where all the sailors maintain pin-drop silence when trying to hide and listen to other subs.

You sneeze or cough and you are f***ed.

The main advantage SSN has over SSKs are the unlimited range and the ability to stay submerged for long durations of time.

Maybe, future advancements in fuel cell technology can render Nuclear Propulsion obsolete.

It is just the presence of Nuclear subs which scares the shit of Conventional subs...

 

[Adux]

yes thats the point. no need for assured second strike when it comes Pak, no need of SSBN at all.

You are wrong in that

why only littoral waters? and i cannot assume that Indian SSNs will be more noisy than conventional subs.

SSN's by its virtue of moving parts is more noisier, while a Battery or AIP operated sub isnt. Unless ofcourse you reach USN SSN levels, but then you have the 212A to content.

SSN VERSUS SSK

The optimal solution to resolve the Navy’s shortfall in its attack submarines in the next 15 to 20 years is to acquire a modest force of advanced conventional submarines (SSKs), specifically those fitted with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. Both SSNs and SSKs can be successfully employed in the littorals. However, and despite the claims of the SSN proponents, the SSKs have some obvious advantages in most enclosed and semi-enclosed seas (collectively called narrow seas.) The SSKs displace between 1,000 and 2,000 tons. For example, the Swedish AIP Gotland-class submarines displace about 1,240 tons on the surface and 1,500 tons submerged. The Scorpene Compact class has a submerged displacement of 1,450 tons and is optimized for operations in shallow waters.

In contrast, the SSNs are much larger. For example, the Los Angeles-class SSN displaces 6,900 tons, the Virginia class about 7,925-tons, and two of the three Seawolf-class boats about 9,100 tons. The third Seawolf class, the Jimmy Carter, displaces some 12,160 tons. The SSNs also have large crews, from about 130 on board Los Angeles-class vessels to 145 for the Seawolf class. Advanced conventional submarines are highly automated resulting in small crews. For example, the Gotlands and German-built Type 212As have a crew of about 25.

SSNs are much faster than any SSK. They are capable of high sustained speeds for a very long time. For example, the maximum submerged speed of the U.S. SSNs is listed as between 25 and 28 knots and as high as 32 knots. This is a distinct advantage in operations on the open ocean. In contrast, the Gotland/Sodermanland classes have a maximum speed of 10 knots on the surface and about 20 knots submerged. The corresponding figures for the Type 212A and French Agosta 90B classes are 12 and 20 knots. In the littorals, because of the much smaller maneuvering space and often rough topography of the sea bottom, all submarines must necessarily sail at low speed. Hence, the SSN advantages over SSKs are much reduced in such waters. However, because of their low speed and endurance, SSKs cannot be employed for operating with carrier and expeditionary strike groups.

SSN proponents claim that there is not much difference in the sizes of the SSN and SSK, but this is not true. The maximum length of the Los Angeles-class SSNs is about 360 feet, Virginia class about 380 feet, and the Seawolf more than 450 feet. In contrast, the length of the Gotlands and Type 212/Type 214 is about 200 feet. The height of the Type 212A and Type 214 is 38 feet and 43 feet, respectively. SSN advocates say the SSN is only 15 feet taller than the SSK. Yet this is not a negligible factor when a submarine has to operate in shallow waters.

Because of their smaller size and displacement, SSKs are more maneuverable. Proponents contend that modern SSNs such as the Virginia class fitted with a new computer-controlled autopilot and hovering system can maintain a specific depth to within 1/10 of a foot and remain at stable depth even in the roughest weather conditions. They can also penetrate close to shore whenever contours of the sea floor permit. However, the size and displacement of SSNs still greatly limit their maneuverability in shallow waters such as the Baltic Sea and many parts of the Persian Gulf. Advanced SSKs are also fitted with a number of features that greatly enhance their capabilities in shallow waters. For example, the Gotland-class is fitted with a rudder configuration that allows extreme maneuverability and operations very close to sea bottom. Its turning radius is very small. And Type 212As can reportedly sail in waters as shallow as 65 feet. Clearly, modern SSKs such as the Gotlands and Type 212A/Type 214 are far more capable and better suited for shallow-water operations than U.S. SSNs.

SSNs provide first-on-the-scene capability because of their stealthiness, high-sustained speed and mobility. Their covertness allows surprise attacks on the sea surface and on land. The very presence of an SSN in certain areas invariably has a great impact on enemy dispositions. SSNs also have virtually unlimited endurance submerged. However, in a typical enclosed or semi-enclosed sea their much smaller maneuvering area reduces that advantage. An AIP conventional submarine can transit rapidly on the surface and submerge for long, quiet patrols at low speed, preserving its batteries for high-speed bursts. The AIP allows a submarine to remain submerged up to three to four weeks. The Gotland/Sodermanland class reportedly can operate on AIP for two weeks submerged without the need for snorting and at a speed of five knots. The Type 212A has a range of 8,000 nautical miles at eight knots on the surface and has an endurance of about 12 weeks. The Agosta 90B’s range is 8,500 miles at nine knots snorting and 350 miles at 3.5 knots submerged. With the AIP, its range submerged is four times longer at a speed of about four knots. It can stay submerged for up to two weeks. The endurance of the Scorpene Basic AIP is about 50 days. In contrast, the non-AIP Russian Kilo-class and the German Type 209 class built in the 1970s and 1980s had an endurance submerged of about 72 hours.

One of the greatest advantages of SSNs over SSKs is that they are fitted with a large and diverse number of advanced sensors and weapons. They can carry larger numbers of heavyweight torpedoes or mines and long-range antiship and/or land attack cruise missiles. The SSNs also can defend themselves with stand-off weapons and, if necessary, withdraw into deep water.

The Virginia-class is also superbly quiet with an absolute minimum nonacoustic signature. It is optimized to operate in littoral waters. However, the great advantage of SSNs of stealthiness has been eroded by the significant technological improvements of diesel-electric submarines operating on AIP at low speed. AIP-fitted submarines are also much quieter than nuclear-powered submarines. The Gotlands have a very low noise, magnetic and infrared signature and because they are vibration-free they are extremely hard to detect. The Type 212A is perhaps the quietest conventional submarine at sea today. Its waterborne noise, magnetic, radar, infrared and pressure signature have been drastically reduced. Its pressure hull is built from a nonmagnetic material and its shaped hull has no straight lines.

One of the greatest disadvantages of the SSKs is their inability to deploy covertly and quickly from homeports many thousands miles away from their prospective operating areas. Hence, host nation support is critical.

SSKs should not be considered either as an expendable force or replacement for the SSNs. They should be deployed only in those littoral waters where the deployment of highly capable but also high-cost vessels is too risky. SSNs should not be deployed in the littorals to search and destroy enemy quiet conventional submarines. It does not make sense to use this $2 billion-plus platform against an enemy platform that costs between $200 million and $300 million. SSKs are excellent quiet platforms for attacking enemy surface combatants and merchant vessels, especially at the approaches to maritime trade choke points such as international straits and narrows and off enemy naval bases and ports. They can also be highly successful for secondary missions as covert offensive and defensive mining, mine reconnaissance, and covert insertion of special operations teams.

The Navy has three options for acquiring a force of SSKs: It can lease a small number of advanced SSKs from a friendly nation for a specific time; it can build SSKs at home based on its own specifications or under license; or it can order them to be built overseas.

Each option has advantages and disadvantages. Only a small number of submarines can be leased, so this option will not resolve the attack submarine force-level shortfall.

Building the AIP submarines in the U.S. would most likely result in a much higher cost than if they were ordered from a foreign shipyard. That’s because the Navy would likely require higher standards than those adopted by foreign yards, resulting in substantially higher procurement expenditures. This, in turn, would reduce the number of the AIP submarines built to two or three boats for each Virginia-class. Based on recent experiences, the build time for domestic AIP submarines would probably also be much longer than if they were built by foreign yards.

The prime candidates for procuring the AIP submarines are the Swedish Stirling AIP submarines and the German Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Type 212A/214 fuel cell AIP. The Swedish design has advantages in its simplicity and lower price of about $365 million per boat. Type 212As, and especially the newest Type 214s, are extremely capable boats but are more expensive. The cost of a Type 212A is reportedly about $500 million.

A major and perhaps insurmountable problem for acquiring advanced conventional submarines is the Navy’s strong opposition to such a solution for the SSN force-level shortfall. The Navy opposed the construction of the SSKs for Taiwan because it feared that Congress might refuse to fund the procurement of the SSNs. These concerns are not unfounded. However, the Navy must first make the right decision that increases the effectiveness of its attack submarine force. Then it must start an intensive and sophisticated effort to educate Congress and the public why the attack submarine force must be balanced.

By acquiring a modest force of advanced conventional submarines the Navy would solve its perennial problem of having an inadequate number of attack submarines in its inventories. It would also not have to rely on submarines provided by other countries to enhance its own capabilities in shallow waters. The time is long past for the Navy to have its own modest force of advanced SSKs.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/02/3836702

I was talking about SSN but gave example of SSBN in movies.

yes its indeed a vital asset from Uncle Sam if he allows to deploy it against Pak.

One cannot argue if you have so low expectation of the capbility of your own force, Heck India has done more when India was poverty stricken piece of shit, US will allow US Equipments.

I didn't know about US Submarine story. can you give us some reliable source. and what happens in littoral waters.
even if there is problem then SSNs can patrol outside littoral waters.

I actually dont, as I am not able to find it.

I don't think India can afford 5 Aircraft Carriers, 35 nuclear Submarines in near term. Its a costly affair to build and operate even few nuclear submarines patrolling regularly. we have small budgets but big ambitions.

There is no way India is fielding a CBG without Adequate Protection, 3 IAC Class is already sanctioned. You already will have Vikramditya by then. 5 CBG will not be a big deal, but 35 Nuke subs will be.

capital outlay for Navy is approx 18000 Cr which amounts to 3.7 bil USD. with that money they have to buy, operate submarines, fighters, carriers, missiles, bombs, torpedoes and all the related to equipment to maintain them.

Strategic Programs Capital Outlay is different.

 

[Adux]

I dunno i am no expert on submarine design. but there may be considerable russian influence on design.

Ofcourse there is, it just isnt a Delta, Typhoon, Borei, Akula, Charlie II or anything. That is all.

 

[p2prada]

5 CBGs based on the Vikrant class,can be accommodated if our Defence Budget increases to 3% of GDP in another 10-15 years, which is the same time required to build it. But, not with our current budget.

But, 35 Nukkad Subs is far, far, far away from being a reality in the near future; even in 2025. We may have the money by then, but we won't have the level of industrial capability required.

 

[kuku]

I hope we can coax pakistan into starting a nuclear submarine program.

That would be worth every paisa.

 

[ajay_ijn]

There is no way India is fielding a CBG without Adequate Protection, 3 IAC Class is already sanctioned. You already will have Vikramditya by then. 5 CBG will not be a big deal, but 35 Nuke subs will be.

Indian Navy wanted 3 ACs. one for western fleet, another for eastern and another in maintainence dry dock. whats the purpose of other two?

 

[Yusuf]

I hope we can coax pakistan into starting a nuclear submarine program.

That would be worth every paisa.

They cannot think of starting their own program. But don't be surprised if you find old Chinese nuke subs with them. Begged or borrowed.

 

[kuku]

They cannot think of starting their own program. But don't be surprised if you find old Chinese nuke subs with them. Begged or borrowed.

That will be sweet, they can hardly afford the current submarines, this will really sting them.

 

[Adux]

Indian Navy wanted 3 ACs. one for western fleet, another for eastern and another in maintainence dry dock. whats the purpose of other two?

Actually you need 2-3/theater, One will be one on base,other one on Long refit and other active.

And also the Navy already has 4 on the horizon, 3 From the Vikrant Class and Vikramaditya. India is going to be Expeditionary Force,and will be modelled on the American CBG, as it is nearly is.

 

[K Factor]

Speculative images by Blog user Harpreet

None of the images have a Towed Array Sonar near the butt, as with all Russian SSNs?