Indian nuclear submarines
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
A colder ocean
India’s new nuclear submarine marks a growing military competition with China
Pakistan’s denunciation of India’s first nuclear submarine, launched on Sunday, was predictable. Islamabad yesterday called the vessel, now about to begin two years of sea trials, “detrimental to regional peace” and a matter of serious concern for all littoral states of the Indian Ocean. Seen from Pakistan, the Arihant — “Destroyer of Enemies” — certainly looks threatening.
Armed with torpedoes and ballistic missiles, the submarine is the first of five that will be powered by an 85-megawatt nuclear reactor and will patrol the Indian Ocean shipping lanes. Its launch makes India only the sixth country in the world to deploy nuclear submarines and is a signal of Delhi’s determination to play a greater global military role commensurate with its growing economic and political strength. But for all the historic animosity and renewed tensions on the subcontinent, Pakistan’s fears are misplaced. The presumed target of the formidable weapons Arihant will carry is not Pakistan but China.
In recent years India has grown increasingly alarmed at China’s military expansion around the Indian Ocean. The Chinese have long had an important naval base on the Burmese coast. They have given massive aid to other Indian Ocean states, signing friendship pacts, building ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh and reportedly setting up a listening post on one of Burma’s islands. Now they are engaged in the most visible projection of their power, transforming the small port of Hambantota on the south coast of Sri Lanka into a large deep-water hub for trans-shipping containers between Europe and Asia. It will also be a forward naval base to control the sea lanes between the Gulf and the Far East, through which most of the world’s oil supplies pass.
India is not the only country suspicious of China’s cultivation of a “string of pearls” — the Pentagon’s phrase — around the Indian Ocean. The United States and Japan share the worries voiced by Admiral Sureesh Mehta, head of the Indian Navy, that China wants to “take control over the world energy jugular”. Sri Lanka made Hambantota port available in return for China’s massive weapons supply to enable the Sri Lankan Army to win a victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Pentagon is sceptical of Chinese claims that this is purely a commercial move, and has encouraged India to build up its navy as a counterweight.
Both countries are now engaged in an arms race. The Indian defence budget in 2007 rose by 7.8 per cent over the previous year, and China announced that its military budget for last year would amount to $59 billion, an increase of 17.6 per cent over 2007. Both countries are investing heavily in their naval forces. For both, the area of strategic competition is the Indian Ocean.
Ironically, this rivalry comes at a time when relations between Delhi and Beijing are at their closest since their brief border war in 1962. Bilateral trade is running at around $40 billion a year, and the two armies have conducted their first joint military exercise. But China was shaken by India’s conclusion last year of a nuclear deal with America, correctly seeing this as a decisive tilt westwards in India’s foreign policy. As a result, a once peaceful ocean is in danger of becoming the arena where Asia’s emerging powers are determined to prove themselves. The Arihant may enter service in three years. A warm ocean is rapidly growing colder
A colder ocean -Times Online
India’s new nuclear submarine marks a growing military competition with China
Pakistan’s denunciation of India’s first nuclear submarine, launched on Sunday, was predictable. Islamabad yesterday called the vessel, now about to begin two years of sea trials, “detrimental to regional peace” and a matter of serious concern for all littoral states of the Indian Ocean. Seen from Pakistan, the Arihant — “Destroyer of Enemies” — certainly looks threatening.
Armed with torpedoes and ballistic missiles, the submarine is the first of five that will be powered by an 85-megawatt nuclear reactor and will patrol the Indian Ocean shipping lanes. Its launch makes India only the sixth country in the world to deploy nuclear submarines and is a signal of Delhi’s determination to play a greater global military role commensurate with its growing economic and political strength. But for all the historic animosity and renewed tensions on the subcontinent, Pakistan’s fears are misplaced. The presumed target of the formidable weapons Arihant will carry is not Pakistan but China.
In recent years India has grown increasingly alarmed at China’s military expansion around the Indian Ocean. The Chinese have long had an important naval base on the Burmese coast. They have given massive aid to other Indian Ocean states, signing friendship pacts, building ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh and reportedly setting up a listening post on one of Burma’s islands. Now they are engaged in the most visible projection of their power, transforming the small port of Hambantota on the south coast of Sri Lanka into a large deep-water hub for trans-shipping containers between Europe and Asia. It will also be a forward naval base to control the sea lanes between the Gulf and the Far East, through which most of the world’s oil supplies pass.
India is not the only country suspicious of China’s cultivation of a “string of pearls” — the Pentagon’s phrase — around the Indian Ocean. The United States and Japan share the worries voiced by Admiral Sureesh Mehta, head of the Indian Navy, that China wants to “take control over the world energy jugular”. Sri Lanka made Hambantota port available in return for China’s massive weapons supply to enable the Sri Lankan Army to win a victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Pentagon is sceptical of Chinese claims that this is purely a commercial move, and has encouraged India to build up its navy as a counterweight.
Both countries are now engaged in an arms race. The Indian defence budget in 2007 rose by 7.8 per cent over the previous year, and China announced that its military budget for last year would amount to $59 billion, an increase of 17.6 per cent over 2007. Both countries are investing heavily in their naval forces. For both, the area of strategic competition is the Indian Ocean.
Ironically, this rivalry comes at a time when relations between Delhi and Beijing are at their closest since their brief border war in 1962. Bilateral trade is running at around $40 billion a year, and the two armies have conducted their first joint military exercise. But China was shaken by India’s conclusion last year of a nuclear deal with America, correctly seeing this as a decisive tilt westwards in India’s foreign policy. As a result, a once peaceful ocean is in danger of becoming the arena where Asia’s emerging powers are determined to prove themselves. The Arihant may enter service in three years. A warm ocean is rapidly growing colder
A colder ocean -Times Online
Deep rising
The nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant will put India in a different league
By Syed Nazakat
A complex at Visakhapatnam’s Naval Dockyard is home to one of the newest and potentially the most lethal weapons in the Navy’s arsenal. If everything goes according to plan, the floodgates of the dockyard will be opened on July 26 for the INS Arihant, a homemade nuclear-powered submarine designed to launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and India will become the sixth country in the world to possess a nuclear sub. Only the US, Russia, Britain, China and France have produced such vessels.
“This is a historic and big step forward,” said Dr P.K. Iyengar, former chairman, Atomic Energy Commi-ssion, who was involved in the early stages of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project to develop the INS Arihant. “Nuclear submarines are far better than the conventional diesel-electric submarines which spend most of their time on the surface,” he said. According to him, the new submarine’s engine needs no air and can operate at full power underwater.
The INS Arihant is built by the scientists of the Navy, the Defence Research and Development Organi-sation (DRDO) and the Department of Atomic Energy, and it took more than three decades and $2.9 billion to complete the project. The submarine uses a pressurised water reactor, is 124 metres long and is said to have a 9,400 tonne displacement when submerged. The highly enriched uranium fuel for the reactor was supplied by the Rare Materials Project, Mysore, and the hull of the vessel was built by Larsen & Toubro at its Hazira dockyard facility in Gujarat. The submarine will undergo trials for two years before its induction into the Navy.
The INS Arihant is expected to carry the short-range ballistic missile Sagarika and fulfil New Delhi’s goal of possessing the nuclear triad: air-, land-, and sea-based nuclear weapon systems.
Nuclear submarines are very effective in counter attacks, and are quiet thanks to the special propellers and sound-insulated engines. “It is a super and surprise weapon,” said a Naval officer. “It is hard to track down nuclear submarines.” Though India had operated a submarine fleet, it was the acquisition of INS Chakra, a Soviet-made Charlie class nuclear-powered submarine, on lease in 1988 that put Indian naval programmes into the limelight. It was interpreted as a major change in India’s capabilities and evidence of its intention to develop naval superiority in the Indian ocean.
Though the Navy is yet to divulge any details, sources at the DRDO said that the Arihant was faster than many US submarines when submerged and the top-speed was in the range of 40 knots. “Facing a nuclear submarine is a nightmare; it has unlimited endurance and mobility and there’s no place for a surface ship to hide,” said Debi Mohanty, naval analyst at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. “It will put the Indian Navy in a different league.”
Submarines surface for two purposes—to recharge batteries and to send and receive messages. Diesel submarines surface at least once a day to recharge batteries and as often as they want to send and receive messages. The Arihant can remain submerged more than 100 days, as nuclear submarines do not have to recharge batteries. Does it have to surface to send and receive messages? “No,” said a Naval officer. “The Arihant can remain underwater and receive and send communications,” thanks to the very low frequency (VLF) technology developed by Indian scientists 15 years ago. Only five countries in the world have this technology.
The Arihant will give India a “colossal advantage” over its neighbours, said a DRDO scientist. “You need submarine-based arsenals to retain a second strike capability, since all land-based arsenals can be detected through satellite surveillance,” said Uday Bhaskar, director of the Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation and a military analyst. “If they’ve been detected, you have to assume that they can be targeted.”
The Week
Bhaskar said New Delhi was seeking to attain a sea-denial capability in the Indian Ocean. In its vision document, Maritime Doctrine, the Navy also underlines the massive strides taken by China, the only Asian country with submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to strengthen its navy. “The mission of the armed forces is not only to be prepared to fight wars,” said Bhaskar, “but also to deter or prevent their outbreak.” Interestingly, the Navy considers Pakistan navy a mere “irritant”. Said a Naval officer, “The mission is to watch China.”
The nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant will put India in a different league
By Syed Nazakat
A complex at Visakhapatnam’s Naval Dockyard is home to one of the newest and potentially the most lethal weapons in the Navy’s arsenal. If everything goes according to plan, the floodgates of the dockyard will be opened on July 26 for the INS Arihant, a homemade nuclear-powered submarine designed to launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and India will become the sixth country in the world to possess a nuclear sub. Only the US, Russia, Britain, China and France have produced such vessels.
“This is a historic and big step forward,” said Dr P.K. Iyengar, former chairman, Atomic Energy Commi-ssion, who was involved in the early stages of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project to develop the INS Arihant. “Nuclear submarines are far better than the conventional diesel-electric submarines which spend most of their time on the surface,” he said. According to him, the new submarine’s engine needs no air and can operate at full power underwater.
The INS Arihant is built by the scientists of the Navy, the Defence Research and Development Organi-sation (DRDO) and the Department of Atomic Energy, and it took more than three decades and $2.9 billion to complete the project. The submarine uses a pressurised water reactor, is 124 metres long and is said to have a 9,400 tonne displacement when submerged. The highly enriched uranium fuel for the reactor was supplied by the Rare Materials Project, Mysore, and the hull of the vessel was built by Larsen & Toubro at its Hazira dockyard facility in Gujarat. The submarine will undergo trials for two years before its induction into the Navy.
The INS Arihant is expected to carry the short-range ballistic missile Sagarika and fulfil New Delhi’s goal of possessing the nuclear triad: air-, land-, and sea-based nuclear weapon systems.
Nuclear submarines are very effective in counter attacks, and are quiet thanks to the special propellers and sound-insulated engines. “It is a super and surprise weapon,” said a Naval officer. “It is hard to track down nuclear submarines.” Though India had operated a submarine fleet, it was the acquisition of INS Chakra, a Soviet-made Charlie class nuclear-powered submarine, on lease in 1988 that put Indian naval programmes into the limelight. It was interpreted as a major change in India’s capabilities and evidence of its intention to develop naval superiority in the Indian ocean.
Though the Navy is yet to divulge any details, sources at the DRDO said that the Arihant was faster than many US submarines when submerged and the top-speed was in the range of 40 knots. “Facing a nuclear submarine is a nightmare; it has unlimited endurance and mobility and there’s no place for a surface ship to hide,” said Debi Mohanty, naval analyst at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. “It will put the Indian Navy in a different league.”
Submarines surface for two purposes—to recharge batteries and to send and receive messages. Diesel submarines surface at least once a day to recharge batteries and as often as they want to send and receive messages. The Arihant can remain submerged more than 100 days, as nuclear submarines do not have to recharge batteries. Does it have to surface to send and receive messages? “No,” said a Naval officer. “The Arihant can remain underwater and receive and send communications,” thanks to the very low frequency (VLF) technology developed by Indian scientists 15 years ago. Only five countries in the world have this technology.
The Arihant will give India a “colossal advantage” over its neighbours, said a DRDO scientist. “You need submarine-based arsenals to retain a second strike capability, since all land-based arsenals can be detected through satellite surveillance,” said Uday Bhaskar, director of the Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation and a military analyst. “If they’ve been detected, you have to assume that they can be targeted.”
The Week
Bhaskar said New Delhi was seeking to attain a sea-denial capability in the Indian Ocean. In its vision document, Maritime Doctrine, the Navy also underlines the massive strides taken by China, the only Asian country with submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to strengthen its navy. “The mission of the armed forces is not only to be prepared to fight wars,” said Bhaskar, “but also to deter or prevent their outbreak.” Interestingly, the Navy considers Pakistan navy a mere “irritant”. Said a Naval officer, “The mission is to watch China.”
India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
By Shireen M Mazari
While Pakistan’s decision makers squabble over whether to go ahead and implement the 2008 decision of buying German submarines or alter course and seek more French subs instead, India has put its prototype nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, into the waters. Incidentally, those in Pakistan who have been ranting for years over the use of Islamic warrior names for our missiles seem absurdly mute in commenting on India’s aggressive usage of Hindu mythology warrior names not only for its missiles but now also for its nuclear-powered submarine. Of course, the reality is that the nuclear reactor of this submarine will not go critical till 2012, so at the moment Arihant is more of a symbolic reflection of where India is headed in terms of its nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, the development has signalled the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean by a littoral state – since nuclear weapons have been present in this Ocean through the military presence of the external nuclear powers, especially the US.
That is one major reason why the US, France and UK always opposed the UN General Assembly’s efforts to make the Indian Ocean a weapon-free “zone of peace” – as reflected in the first UN GA Resolution of 16 December 1971(2832:XXVI). Ironically, along with the Soviet Union, India was a major force behind this Non-Aligned Movement-supported UN resolution. But then this has been the hallmark of Indian security policy: seeking time through multilateral diplomatic moves while it builds its military capability. In contrast to the Indian position on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace resolution, the US, France and the UK always voted against this idea and in 1989 they chose to withdraw from the 44 member UN committee on this issue that had been set up in 1972. The US in fact demanded that the committee be eliminated so as to reduce UN spending and we know how this whole issue simply died for lack of visible progress. Now that India has also moved towards nuclear militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it will be difficult to see any revival of the zone of peace proposal for this region in the future. With the launching of the Arihant, India has moved still further away from being a proponent of nuclear disarmament to being a projector of nuclear force. Strategic rationality makes it incumbent on Pakistan to seek to restore the nuclear balance for the future.
However, this should not be a major issue for us even in financial terms, as long as the lure of commissions does not distort or destroy our strategic interests. We already have conventional submarines including the Agosta-type which are not only capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but can be upgraded to being fitted with air-independent propulsion technology (AIP) specifically designed to allow conventional subs to remain submerged for longer periods. That is the main advantage of nuclear-powered submarines, along with the speed element – they do not need to surface like conventional subs that need to surface after short periods of being submerged and therefore become vulnerable. AIP technology is specifically designed for conventional subs and the Germans have been in the forefront of this technological development, although the Agostas can also be upgraded.
It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s purchase of subs has been delayed apparently over the commissions lure, because now the international community will make it harder for this country to acquire these subs. Have we learnt no lessons from what happened to Pakistan in 1974 after the Indian nuclear test? India tested and Pakistan was penalised! The Canadians withdrew from KANUPP despite IAEA safeguards and a legal agreement. There is nothing to suggest that things will be different this time round – given how Hillary Clinton practically blessed Indian militarisation with a new defence pact. Besides Pakistan’s pathetic record of asserting legal agreements with its allies makes us easy victims of foreign pressure and diktat – remember the replacement of F-16s with wheat and soya beans? Not only did we lose our money, but before the US finally retracted on the deal, we were made to pay parking charges for these F-16s also! But we always forget US abuse and present ourselves for more of the same whenever the occasion arises!
Coming back to the Indian nuclear powered submarine – it should be pointed out that we do not yet know how it will perform once its reactor goes critical. Will it actually have the speed and capability – given that it has been built with Soviet/Russian technology and the fate of many Soviet/Russian subs lies at the bottom of the seas – taking a heavy toll of human life and reflecting the limitations of Soviet weapon systems? A major disadvantage of nuclear-powered subs is that they are noisier because they have to keep the reactor powered on all the time so if conventional subs can acquire longer submergeable capability through AIP technology – although it will still not be the same as a nuclear-driven sub – the imbalance can be offset to some extent.
Sea-launched nuclear missiles are central to second strike capability which acts as a stabiliser in the context of nuclear strategy since it reduces the imperatives for first strike. In this context, although Pakistan has not officially made any declarations regarding the development of this capability, it is now fairly well-established that we are already on the way to ensuring this second strike capability. It is also now recognised that we have had more success with missile development than India – probably because we have kept our missile ranges and types limited and focused more on developing solid fuelled delivery systems (which, again, are more stable) and reducing circular error probabilities. India, on the other hand, chose to have a wide-ranging missile programme including seeking the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While we have stabilised our cruise missile as well as moved towards the beginnings of sea-launched ballistic missiles, from all accounts, India has not been too successful in both these fields – especially with the Sagarika (which is to be its sea-launched missile) in surface tests. So if India is to gain any advantage from its nuclear-powered submarine, assuming it will perform as expected once its reactor goes critical, it will have to work more on its delivery systems.
For Pakistan while there is no need to go into panic mode, we will have to stop sacrificing good deals simply because of the greed over commissions. The fact that a French inquiry has hinted at commissions lying at the root of the death of the French engineers in Karachi should be a sobering moment for any leadership. But the brazenness with which our successive decision-makers have been proceeding, with scant regard for propriety and wastage of limited national resources, shows that no lessons have been learnt – nor is there any desire to learn from even recent history.
Worse still, our rulers are full of bombast but are unwilling to take proactive concrete actions. Take the case of Balochistan. Political leaders of all shades have been repeating ad nauseum the need for political healing and economic investment in that province but why have the first steps in that direction not been taken beyond publication of reports and statements? Why is the leadership so hesitant to declare a general amnesty for all Baloch political figures and the release of all political prisoners? When we can talk to militants (and we should if they are our own people prepared to accept the writ of the state) and be allied to the Americans who continue to kill our people through drone attacks, why are we so unwilling to begin the healing process with the Baloch people and their leaders? Why are we allowing our detractors to provide support for the dissidents instead of taking the punch out of their dissidence by granting them a one-time amnesty if they accept the writ of the state? How can we rise to external military challenges posed by countries like India and the US when we are unable to deal with our own people? Our weakness lies within ourselves reflecting a psychological confidence deficit which makes the rulers aggressive and non-accommodative with the nation and timorous before external players. The Indians and Americans are exploiting this well which is why the Indian’s are making grandiose statements about a submarine that has yet to show how it performs!
India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
By Shireen M Mazari
While Pakistan’s decision makers squabble over whether to go ahead and implement the 2008 decision of buying German submarines or alter course and seek more French subs instead, India has put its prototype nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, into the waters. Incidentally, those in Pakistan who have been ranting for years over the use of Islamic warrior names for our missiles seem absurdly mute in commenting on India’s aggressive usage of Hindu mythology warrior names not only for its missiles but now also for its nuclear-powered submarine. Of course, the reality is that the nuclear reactor of this submarine will not go critical till 2012, so at the moment Arihant is more of a symbolic reflection of where India is headed in terms of its nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, the development has signalled the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean by a littoral state – since nuclear weapons have been present in this Ocean through the military presence of the external nuclear powers, especially the US.
That is one major reason why the US, France and UK always opposed the UN General Assembly’s efforts to make the Indian Ocean a weapon-free “zone of peace” – as reflected in the first UN GA Resolution of 16 December 1971(2832:XXVI). Ironically, along with the Soviet Union, India was a major force behind this Non-Aligned Movement-supported UN resolution. But then this has been the hallmark of Indian security policy: seeking time through multilateral diplomatic moves while it builds its military capability. In contrast to the Indian position on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace resolution, the US, France and the UK always voted against this idea and in 1989 they chose to withdraw from the 44 member UN committee on this issue that had been set up in 1972. The US in fact demanded that the committee be eliminated so as to reduce UN spending and we know how this whole issue simply died for lack of visible progress. Now that India has also moved towards nuclear militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it will be difficult to see any revival of the zone of peace proposal for this region in the future. With the launching of the Arihant, India has moved still further away from being a proponent of nuclear disarmament to being a projector of nuclear force. Strategic rationality makes it incumbent on Pakistan to seek to restore the nuclear balance for the future.
However, this should not be a major issue for us even in financial terms, as long as the lure of commissions does not distort or destroy our strategic interests. We already have conventional submarines including the Agosta-type which are not only capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but can be upgraded to being fitted with air-independent propulsion technology (AIP) specifically designed to allow conventional subs to remain submerged for longer periods. That is the main advantage of nuclear-powered submarines, along with the speed element – they do not need to surface like conventional subs that need to surface after short periods of being submerged and therefore become vulnerable. AIP technology is specifically designed for conventional subs and the Germans have been in the forefront of this technological development, although the Agostas can also be upgraded.
It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s purchase of subs has been delayed apparently over the commissions lure, because now the international community will make it harder for this country to acquire these subs. Have we learnt no lessons from what happened to Pakistan in 1974 after the Indian nuclear test? India tested and Pakistan was penalised! The Canadians withdrew from KANUPP despite IAEA safeguards and a legal agreement. There is nothing to suggest that things will be different this time round – given how Hillary Clinton practically blessed Indian militarisation with a new defence pact. Besides Pakistan’s pathetic record of asserting legal agreements with its allies makes us easy victims of foreign pressure and diktat – remember the replacement of F-16s with wheat and soya beans? Not only did we lose our money, but before the US finally retracted on the deal, we were made to pay parking charges for these F-16s also! But we always forget US abuse and present ourselves for more of the same whenever the occasion arises!
Coming back to the Indian nuclear powered submarine – it should be pointed out that we do not yet know how it will perform once its reactor goes critical. Will it actually have the speed and capability – given that it has been built with Soviet/Russian technology and the fate of many Soviet/Russian subs lies at the bottom of the seas – taking a heavy toll of human life and reflecting the limitations of Soviet weapon systems? A major disadvantage of nuclear-powered subs is that they are noisier because they have to keep the reactor powered on all the time so if conventional subs can acquire longer submergeable capability through AIP technology – although it will still not be the same as a nuclear-driven sub – the imbalance can be offset to some extent.
Sea-launched nuclear missiles are central to second strike capability which acts as a stabiliser in the context of nuclear strategy since it reduces the imperatives for first strike. In this context, although Pakistan has not officially made any declarations regarding the development of this capability, it is now fairly well-established that we are already on the way to ensuring this second strike capability. It is also now recognised that we have had more success with missile development than India – probably because we have kept our missile ranges and types limited and focused more on developing solid fuelled delivery systems (which, again, are more stable) and reducing circular error probabilities. India, on the other hand, chose to have a wide-ranging missile programme including seeking the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While we have stabilised our cruise missile as well as moved towards the beginnings of sea-launched ballistic missiles, from all accounts, India has not been too successful in both these fields – especially with the Sagarika (which is to be its sea-launched missile) in surface tests. So if India is to gain any advantage from its nuclear-powered submarine, assuming it will perform as expected once its reactor goes critical, it will have to work more on its delivery systems.
For Pakistan while there is no need to go into panic mode, we will have to stop sacrificing good deals simply because of the greed over commissions. The fact that a French inquiry has hinted at commissions lying at the root of the death of the French engineers in Karachi should be a sobering moment for any leadership. But the brazenness with which our successive decision-makers have been proceeding, with scant regard for propriety and wastage of limited national resources, shows that no lessons have been learnt – nor is there any desire to learn from even recent history.
Worse still, our rulers are full of bombast but are unwilling to take proactive concrete actions. Take the case of Balochistan. Political leaders of all shades have been repeating ad nauseum the need for political healing and economic investment in that province but why have the first steps in that direction not been taken beyond publication of reports and statements? Why is the leadership so hesitant to declare a general amnesty for all Baloch political figures and the release of all political prisoners? When we can talk to militants (and we should if they are our own people prepared to accept the writ of the state) and be allied to the Americans who continue to kill our people through drone attacks, why are we so unwilling to begin the healing process with the Baloch people and their leaders? Why are we allowing our detractors to provide support for the dissidents instead of taking the punch out of their dissidence by granting them a one-time amnesty if they accept the writ of the state? How can we rise to external military challenges posed by countries like India and the US when we are unable to deal with our own people? Our weakness lies within ourselves reflecting a psychological confidence deficit which makes the rulers aggressive and non-accommodative with the nation and timorous before external players. The Indians and Americans are exploiting this well which is why the Indian’s are making grandiose statements about a submarine that has yet to show how it performs!
India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante
Adux
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,022
- Likes
- 1,707
Lol,That bitch is so funny, Shreen Mazreen!
You can see Arihant in the back ground, and I think the front portion of the sub is towards the Prime Ministers Left.
YouTube - India launches nuclear submarine
You can see Arihant in the back ground, and I think the front portion of the sub is towards the Prime Ministers Left.
YouTube - India launches nuclear submarine
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,474
- Likes
- 1,062
The first ATV doesn't have a Towed array sonar pod , but the future ones will have them.
All Russian SSNs had it and even the ATV was supposed to have one, till some days back. ???
(I'm talking about the part above the water near the end of the sub in the above pic)
Adux
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,022
- Likes
- 1,707
I am suprised that nobody noticed this!
sayareakd
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,953
after going through that you tube video of launch of atv, it appears that their are two or more video cameras for the function one was civilian and other was from navy.....
ATV is black colour and light is reflected from the surface, since it is shiny...... if we see the sailors who are standing in pic their white pants have turn gray......
it appears that their are lot of interesting structures in that building knowns as SBC....
lot of things where hidden with curtains...... that is understandable given the nature of project.
ATV is black colour and light is reflected from the surface, since it is shiny...... if we see the sailors who are standing in pic their white pants have turn gray......
it appears that their are lot of interesting structures in that building knowns as SBC....
lot of things where hidden with curtains...... that is understandable given the nature of project.
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
I don't believe it. It's just misinformation. A 124m sub with 9000tons+ displacement and only 1 85MW reactor is a little too much to digest.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
INTERVIEW/DR P.K. IYENGAR, FORMER CHAIRMAN, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
It is world class
manoj joshi's blog: India's boomer: The launch of the Arihant
It is world class
manoj joshi's blog: India's boomer: The launch of the Arihant
Adux
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,022
- Likes
- 1,707
Well you can confirm it, if you know if is 85MW or 85MWe;...It is quite possible, for all you know the 111m maybe misinformation, and here it is 9400 submerged displacement.
I think it has 85 MW reactor.....
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,474
- Likes
- 1,062
I think what Adux says is correct , since a Victor class with approximately similar weight and dimensions needed 2 VM-4P pressurized-water nuclear reactors (75 Mw each)
85 Mw itself may not be sufficient to operate a modern SSN , considering the power requirement for various new sub systems over a older design.
85 Mw itself may not be sufficient to operate a modern SSN , considering the power requirement for various new sub systems over a older design.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,474
- Likes
- 1,062
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
85 MWe will make it smaller than a 85 MW. MWe is greater in value than MW.
And the rest of the mumbo jumbo is from some Pakistani analyst whose article is more emotional than something with substance. All the information is completely wrong. The 9000tons displacement is definitely not possible for a 85MW reactor.
And the article about the Reactor going critical only in 2012. So, until 2012 the submarine will be pushed around by divers for sea trials. ROFL.
I will believe the news only when it is quoted by a DRDO scientist.
Adux
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,022
- Likes
- 1,707
.
You are contradicting yourself.
It is quite possible if it is based Severodvinsk, it is going to be 190MW
I hope you know, I was making fun of her.
I suggest you read this : South Asia's nuclear security ... - Google Books
That will never ever happen, unless it is decommissioned.
Adux
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,022
- Likes
- 1,707
I really dont think Indians are that too stupid to blow hordes of money to buy 1960's tech, or an underpowered reactor, when India and Russia has far more tech cooperation in Brahmos etc, It is quite wrong to think that we are idiots.
This is a brand new design, possibly based on the Severodvinsk.
This is a brand new design, possibly based on the Severodvinsk.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
British nuclear submarine crew boiled to death in indian ocean | Naval Warfare | 2 | |
|
The Great Indian Nuclear Submarine Saga | Indian Navy | 1 | |
|
Indian Navy accelerates Nuclear Submarine programme | Indian Navy | 0 | |
|
Indian Nuclear Forces of the Future...? | Strategic Forces | 21 |
