Indian nuclear submarines

[Adux]

According to Russky Telegraph, the hulls of the submarines laid down in India are almost blueprints of the newest Russian attack submarine, the Severodvinsk-class, which is currently under construction in Severodvinsk, Arkhangel'sk County. Indian submarines reportedly will be outfitted with one PWR reactor with a power output of 190 MW. The same machinery is placed on the Severodvinsk-class submarine.

No information is currently available on the weaponry for the Indian nuclear-powered submarines. In the meantime, India's friends from Russia plan to armour their Severodvinsk-class with SS-N-15/16 missiles.

http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/engli ... ssels/9518

 

[ant80]

http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/engli ... ssels/9518

I just looked it up and there's no such thing as the Severodvinsk-class. Severodvinsk is the first submarine in the Graney class. This link you gave us doesn't work.

edit: Another point. The crew complement for the Graney class is around 50, which is WAY lower than the crew complement for any other nuclear submarine. If the news article is accurate, it might help to find out the crew complement for the INS Arihant.

 

[venom]

INS Arihant - A watershed moment

India's first nuclear submarine will be a key component of our total defence capability.

There are moments that are more definable than others, the watershed points in life, whether of a nation, an institution or an individual. One such moment, whose time should actually have come earlier, came to the Indian Navy with the launch of our own nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, in Visakhapatnam on July 26, by the Prime Minister. There have been other such events in the sixty-year lifespan of the Indian Navy, induction of the cruiser INS Delhi in 1953, being the first, followed in succession by others. The acquisition of the aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, in 1961, made the young Service a ‘blue water’ force, the only regional country to have that claim. Inductions of the first submarine, INS Kalvari in 1967 and of the Missile Boats (which were to wreak havoc on Karachi on December 4, 1971) in 1968, were others. Not to be left behind, was the switch of maritime air surveillance aircraft from the IAF to the Navy in the late 1970s which made the seagoing force a self-sufficient entity. To this list can be added the acquisition of INS Viraat in 1987, making us a ‘two aircraft carrier Navy’, the lease of the nuclear-powered submarine, INS Chakra in 1988 and, arguably, the induction of INS Jalashva (formerly USS Trenton) a few years ago which has enabled credible assistance to be provided in the region during natural calamities such as the tsunami of 2004. All of these and, of course, many other milestones in afloat as well as shore support facilities have made the Indian Navy the leading regional maritime power that it is. To this impressive list must now be added the launch of INS Arihant.

It was over two decades ago that we embarked on a project termed the ATV, or Advanced Technology Vessel. As far back as the mid-1970s, a small unit called Project 932 was constituted under a Commander rank officer under the aegis of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)—its task: to develop feasibility of a small reactor which could fit within a submarine hull. This project moved slowly and with mixed results, with less than enthusiastic support from the Navy’s hierarchy. In 1980, it nearly came to a dead halt. An officer working in the project, not a nuclear reactor engineer but one who had acquired deep knowledge in this field on his own, persuaded the then Navy Chief that the DAE design was seriously flawed. The matter was taken up with the then Scientific Adviser in the Ministry of Defence, Dr Raja Ramanna — a distinguished nuclear scientist himself — but without resolution. The result was that the 932, already on slow march, ground to a halt. The officer who had questioned the design being developed left the Navy and, whilst en route to the US, was arrested at the airport for possessing highly classified literature which later turned out to be all in the public domain. He spent some years in prison, argued his own case before the court and was acquitted, with strictures passed against the DAE.

It was not until the mid-1980s that the concept was revived as the ATV Project, this time under the Department of Defence Research and Development (DRDO). By 1989, a full-fledged organisation had been put in place with outlying units at Kalpakkam (under DAE for reactor design) and Hyderabad (for developing auxiliaries and systems). We then entered into an agreement with Russia for developmental and design assistance for a nuclear-powered submarine. From then to now has been a long journey of two decades with many ups and downs but with some very substantial long-term gains. Indigenous participation — especially of private sector companies, Larsen and Toubro and Walchand, to name only two — has been very encouraging. Aside from the reactor, we now have manufacturers who can build and weld submarine hull sections which can stand pressures at great depths. Capacity to build pipes and cables, compressors and air conditioning machinery, pumps, gear boxes and generators, all strengthened for underwater operations has been created within the country. To this should be added interfacing of electronic systems from several sources—no easy task. So, there is much to be proud of and little to moan about the delay as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) can be expected to do. The larger vision is, perhaps correctly, not part of his duty or responsibility; in any event, there is no accountability.

It has been excitedly proclaimed by some in the media that India now has a triad of nuclear weapon delivery capability, the land and air elements being in place already. Nothing can be farther from the reality. Some trials of a rocket launch from a fixed underwater platform have reportedly been carried out but these do not translate themselves into an on-board capability. That will also come at some time in the future but that moment is not now. An underwater vertical launch system is about the most sophisticated and complex weapon and it is not going to happen anytime soon. For the present, a few years are needed to prove the platform and its systems, first on the surface in harbour, then on the surface at sea and finally, under water, progressively at increasing depths. All along there will be need for corrections and modifications. The nuclear reactor itself has to be made ‘critical’. So, there is need to move slowly with full regard to safety and without getting hustled by those sections who know not what they say. The fact that a leased nuclear submarine of the Russian Akula class will be operational with the Navy very soon should be a confidence-generating feature of the plan.

INS Arihant will, happily, not be a ‘one alone’ thing. Reports have it that the government has sanctioned at least three submarines of this type already. Nuclear-powered submarines capable of launching long-range ballistic missiles are strategic, not tactical, weapons. In the global strategic equations from which India cannot remain excluded for very long, they will be an important component of our total national power. It is a moment of satisfaction for every Indian, not just those who go to sea. The launch of INS Arihant is, undoubtedly, a watershed not just for the Indian Navy, but for the nation.

Premvir Das: INS Arihant - A watershed moment

 

[p2prada]

.
You are contradicting yourself.

Then I am afraid I never got your point in the first place.

It is quite possible if it is based Severodvinsk, it is going to be 190MW

The Graney class is speculative. It will be interesting to see our crew complement if the ATV is automated.

I hope you know, I was making fun of her.
I suggest you read this : South Asia's nuclear security ... - Google Books

The book says IN is going for a 80-100MW reactor in the interim and a 160-190MW as a standard later in the future, perhaps on the next ATVs.

That will never ever happen, unless it is decommissioned.

Not necessary. We like to bloat and gloat.

 

[Sridhar]

As per Sandeep Unnithan the reactor is based on Russian VM-4 PWR

The last and most important milestone was reached in 2006 when an indigenously-built version of the Russian VM-4 PWR, which propelled the Charlie-1, was successfully landtested and sealed into the hull of the ATV the following year.

Deep impact: India Today - Latest Breaking News from India, World, Business, Cricket, Sports, Bollywood.

Global security also notes by other accounts the size of ATV 1 is 124 meters long and has a displacement of 9400 tons.

By other accounts it would be 9,400 tons displacement when submerged and 124 meters long.
Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV)

Also it notes it is a derivative of Severodvinsk-class

By 2004 it was reported that the first ATV would be launched by 2007. At that time it was reported that it would be an SSGN and displacing some 6,500 tons, with a design derivative of Russia's Project 885 Severodvinsk-class (Yasen) SSN. The ATV multirole platform would be employed for carrying out long-distance interdiction and surveillance of both submerged targets as well as principal surface combatants. It would also facilitate Special Forces operations by covertly landing such forces ashore. The ATV pressure hull will be fabricated with the HY-80 steel obtained from Russia.

This would have the possibility of multiple performance: it could use missiles of cruise of average reach (1,000 km), ballistic missiles of short reach (300 km), torpedoes and mines, besides participating of operations special.
The ATV is said to be a modified Akula-I class submarine. The Russian Akula-2 and Yasen are also modified Akula-1. By this line of reasoning the ATV would be in league of Yasen, so the ATV would be 6500 tons light, 8500 tons armed and surfaced and 10000 tons submerged. It would be the biggest and heaviest combat naval vessel built in India to date.

 

[Adux]

Then I am afraid I never got your point in the first place.

Read what you wrote again. I am not an engg dude, so forgive me if I am wrong, but thermal/electerical Mwe is greater than MW.

The Graney class is speculative. It will be interesting to see our crew complement if the ATV is automated.

You forget Graney is a SSN/SSGN, and we have SSBN, that increases the crew compliment.

The book says IN is going for a 80-100MW reactor in the interim and a 160-190MW as a standard later in the future, perhaps on the next ATVs.

It makes no financial sense, and somehow we are stuck in the assumption that we would copy a 1960's design, I think even the chinese are more prudent than that. And the damn thing at 85MW will be so underpowered it can barely move. There is another thing, Timelines, Indians had trouble downsizing in 190MW reactor in 1985; the Russsians started helping us in 1998, I would assume most of the data these people are talking one is about the scrapped first ATV prototype, and the second one specs are completely different. It would make perfect sense.

Not necessary. We like to bloat and gloat

Not the Navy

 

[Sridhar]

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6638/atv27s2bconning2btower.jpg

Guys check the place where the Towed array winch is located , Is it the correct place to have it.

 

[p2prada]

Read what you wrote again. I am not an engg dude, so forgive me if I am wrong, but thermal/electerical Mwe is greater than MW.

No, I did not understand your point in bringing it up. The 85 MW is indeed small. At 85MWe, the net output will be even smaller to atleast ~70 MW. That's what I pointed out.

85 MWe will make it smaller than a 85 MW

Rephrase:85MWe(net o/p = 70MW) will make it smaller than a 85 MW(~95-100MWe).

You forget Graney is a SSN/SSGN, and we have SSBN, that increases the crew compliment.

We will need atleast 30 on the SLBMs. But, the latest in automation will help. This will lead to reduction in noise levels and a lesser complement is always beneficial. It will be good if the 2 subs are related.

It makes no financial sense, and somehow we are stuck in the assumption that we would copy a 1960's design, I think even the chinese are more prudent than that. And the damn thing at 85MW will be so underpowered it can barely move. There is another thing, Timelines, Indians had trouble downsizing in 190MW reactor in 1985; the Russsians started helping us in 1998, I would assume most of the data these people are talking one is about the scrapped first ATV prototype, and the second one specs are completely different. It would make perfect sense.

Yes, History proves otherwise. It is possible that the ATV is powered by a 160-190 MW reactor. Then again, BARC tried working on 2 80MW reactors too.

Finance may not have been on their minds when the main obstacles were technological.

If the sub's max displacement is around 6000tons then a 85 MW is enough for speeds of 20-25Knots. The reactor will be required to run at high power at all times which in turn results in wastage of fuel. The hull will have to be cut open quicker than expected.

Not the Navy

I was talking about DRDO.:113:

 

[Sridhar]

In the electric power industry, megawatt electrical (abbreviation: MWe[5] or MWe[6]) is a term that refers to electric power, while megawatt thermal or thermal megawatt[7] (abbreviations: MWt, MWth, MWt, or MWth) refers to thermal power produced. Other SI prefixes are sometimes used, for example gigawatt electrical (GWe).[8]
For example, the Embalse nuclear power plant in Argentina uses a fission reactor to generate 2109 MWt of heat, which creates steam to drive a turbine, which generates 648 MWe of electricity. The difference is due to the inefficiency of steam-turbine generators and the limitations of the theoretical Carnot Cycle.


Watt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

648 /2109 traslates into 31 % efficiency , if we apply the same % to 80 MWe the thermal power would be 260 MWt.

 

[Adux]

648 /2109 traslates into 31 % efficiency , if we apply the same % to 80 MWe the thermal power would be 260 MWt.

Thank You, Thats what I meant.

 

[p2prada]

The efficiency of a naval reactor is not that high. Best say, 20%.

 

[Adux]

No, I did not understand your point in bringing it up. The 85 MW is indeed small. At 85MWe, the net output will be even smaller to atleast ~70 MW. That's what I pointed out.

85 MWe will make it smaller than a 85 MW

Rephrase:85MWe(net o/p = 70MW) will make it smaller than a 85 MW(~95-100MWe).

You are forgetting it is a steam engine that propels a Nuke Sub.

We will need atleast 30 on the SLBMs. But, the latest in automation will help. This will lead to reduction in noise levels and a lesser complement is always beneficial. It will be good if the 2 subs are related.

You dont know that number, all we know it is going to be a higher number than a SSN.

Yes, History proves otherwise. It is possible that the ATV is powered by a 160-190 MW reactor. Then again, BARC tried working on 2 80MW reactors too.

Finance may not have been on their minds when the main obstacles were technological.

If the sub's max displacement is around 6000tons then a 85 MW is enough for speeds of 20-25Knots. The reactor will be required to run at high power at all times which in turn results in wastage of fuel. The hull will have to be cut open quicker than expected.

Look at the Thermal Efficieny, That sub will be a tech prototype and nothing else, if this above was the case, then what was the need of the Russians?

I was talking about DRDO.:113:

Then I agree.

 

[John]

ATV's+Torpedo+Loading+Mechanism.jpg (image)

ATV's+CMS.jpg (image)

ATV's+Non-Hull+Penetrating+Masts.jpg (image)

ATV's+Conning+Tower.jpg (image)

 

[Adux]

Prasun Sengupta can go suck an egg for all I care. Idiot.

 

[p2prada]

At 15% efficiency: 85MW=100MWe=150MWt

At 20%: 85MW=100MWe=200MWt

At 15%: 70MW=85MWe=127.5MWt

At 20%:70MW=85MWe=170MWt.

But, all these figures are small considering western and Russian nuclear subs already work at twice that capacity.

 

[Adux]

I am off the firm belief, considering the time lines, it is a Russian 190Mwt powerplant which is the same as in a Akula -2

 

[p2prada]

I am off the firm belief, considering the time lines, it is a Russian 190Mwt powerplant which is the same as in a Akula -2

A 80-85 MW reactor does generate 160-190MWt of power.

Note: The Russian Typhoon class, Akula class and the new Borei class use the same class of nuclear reactor. It's net output is 90MW or 190MWt.

 

[bhramos]

ATV's+Torpedo+Loading+Mechanism.jpg (image)
(image)[/url]

why does image say underwater rocket.
does this means Shakval?

 

[John]

word has it that we are working on a super cavitation torpedo, that could be the rocket they talk about. It could also be the Shkval.Not sure.

 

[amitkriit]

Strength of India will not be judged by the number of Hi-Tech platforms she posseses, this will depend more on the number of such platforms she can actively deploy at a time for continuous detterance. Also we mush be having good defence industry which can act quickly to replace any damaged/defunct/sunken asset.
All military assets are not deployed at a time, while some keep sailing (say ~45-50%) rest wait in docks for refitting, or as backups. India had to keep her Aircraft carrier (Vikrant) docked for the entire duration during 1965 war, because some Pakistani sub was coming after it. Arihant has a long way to go before it is successfully inducted in Indian Navy (some experts put it to 2015). We are trailing Chinese by a decade, we better fasten things up.