Indian nuclear submarines

[tharun]

View attachment 7541


whatever little is available publicly Arihant reactor model 86 Mwt around 44000 SHP with modestly enriched fuel of around 40 to 45 % U 235

Is 86 Mwt or Mwe.........................

 

[warrior monk]

Is 86 Mwt or Mwe.........................

It is between 80 to 86 MWth not MWe as real figures have not been revealed yet for this boat or anything like its SHP , cycle rate , burn up level , amount of fuel loading etc so every thing is in the area of pure guess work.

 

[piKacHHu]

http://gentleseas.blogspot.in/2015/10/submarine-propulsion-test-reactor-needs.html

Much of the information related to Arihant is provided in this link.

"India launched its first nuclear submarine in 2009, the 6000 dwt Arihant SSBN, with a single 85 MW PWR fuelled by HEU (critical in August 2013) driving a 70 MW steam turbine. It is reported to have cost US$ 2.9 billion and is expected to be commissioned in 2016. The INS Aridaman SSBN is under construction at the Ship Building Centre in Visakhapatnam, and was due to be launched in 2015. Another six SSBN twice the size of Arihant class and six nuclear SSNs powered by a new reactor being developed by BARC are planned, the latter being approved by government in February 2015. They will be similar size to Arihant class SSBN. India is also leasing an almost-new 7900 dwt (12,770 tonne submerged) Russian Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine for ten years from 2010, at a cost of US$ 650 million: the INS Chakra, formerly Nerpa. It has a single 190 MWt VM-5/ OK-659B PWR driving a 32 MW steam turbine and two 2 MWe turbogenerators."

HEU (U-235 >90 %) is generally used as Fuel for submarine reactor, however, study is underway to utilize MEU in the upcoming projects (May be for carrier based reactors). Burn-up is obviously high (>200 GWDte) considering HEU enrichment and assuming zero or very few refueling during the entire life time.

 

[warrior monk]

http://gentleseas.blogspot.in/2015/10/submarine-propulsion-test-reactor-needs.html

Much of the information related to Arihant is provided in this link.

"India launched its first nuclear submarine in 2009, the 6000 dwt Arihant SSBN, with a single 85 MW PWR fuelled by HEU (critical in August 2013) driving a 70 MW steam turbine. It is reported to have cost US$ 2.9 billion and is expected to be commissioned in 2016. The INS Aridaman SSBN is under construction at the Ship Building Centre in Visakhapatnam, and was due to be launched in 2015. Another six SSBN twice the size of Arihant class and six nuclear SSNs powered by a new reactor being developed by BARC are planned, the latter being approved by government in February 2015. They will be similar size to Arihant class SSBN. India is also leasing an almost-new 7900 dwt (12,770 tonne submerged) Russian Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine for ten years from 2010, at a cost of US$ 650 million: the INS Chakra, formerly Nerpa. It has a single 190 MWt VM-5/ OK-659B PWR driving a 32 MW steam turbine and two 2 MWe turbogenerators."

HEU (U-235 >90 %) is generally used as Fuel for submarine reactor, however, study is underway to utilize MEU in the upcoming projects (May be for carrier based reactors). Burn-up is obviously high (>200 GWDte) considering HEU enrichment and assuming zero or very few refueling during the entire life time.

How the hell did they even know about the exact power rating of our reactor , reactor geometry of Arihant the number of fuel pins and assemblies of our core etc obviously the SHP looks fishy for Arihant . Most naval reactors don't use HEU except probably US and Russian ice breakers so achieving 200 GWDte burn up level is not possible currently the burnup is probably less than 80 GWDte which can be achieved for a modestly enriched fueled reactor.

 

[piKacHHu]

Most naval reactors don't use HEU except probably US and Russian ice breakers so achieving 200 GWDte burn up level is not possible currently the burnup is probably less than 80 GWDte which can be achieved for a modestly enriched fueled reactor.

On the contrary, submarine based reactors have high enrichment (>90%) so that the reactor runs till the submarine completes its lifetime without refueling. Ideally, core design of every submarine based reactors uses this basis; however, due to limitations in achieving high Linear heat rate and effective heat removal capacity power density of the core is lowered. But again as the power density goes low, the reactor size increases for given power output which is not suitable for submarine usage given the space crunch it has. Aircraft carrier based reactor on the other hand can use even LEU (<19.5%) for propulsion as it has adequate space. It all depends upon design standardization.
I think our indigenous reactor is based on Russian ones to get hands-on-experience of designing such a compact reactor. Based on the experience, we will certainly up-rate the reactor for the bigger vessels and standardized it for future SSNs/SSBNs.

How the hell did they even know about the exact power rating of our reactor , reactor geometry of Arihant the number of fuel pins and assemblies of our core etc obviously the SHP looks fishy for Arihant .

This data seems to be quite generic; might be available on website. Design of fuel pin is more crucial than no.s of fuel pins in this case considering heat transfer issues.

You were right, its 83 Mwth not 83 MWe.

 

[warrior monk]

On the contrary, submarine based reactors have high enrichment (>90%) so that the reactor runs till the submarine completes its lifetime without refueling. Ideally, core design of every submarine based reactors uses this basis; however, due to limitations in achieving high Linear heat rate and effective heat removal capacity power density of the core is lowered. But again as the power density goes low, the reactor size increases for given power output which is not suitable for submarine usage given the space crunch it has. Aircraft carrier based reactor on the other hand can use even LEU (<19.5%) for propulsion as it has adequate space. It all depends upon design standardization.
I think our indigenous reactor is based on Russian ones to get hands-on-experience of designing such a compact reactor. Based on the experience, we will certainly up-rate the reactor for the bigger vessels and standardized it for future SSNs/SSBNs.

Except probably KLT-40 (Sevmorput) how many Russian reactors have HEU as fuel . Most Russian reactors don't even have 100 GWdte burnups so Russian subs need to be refuelled every 10-12 years not like American subs which can operate upto 33 years at a stretch and need only one non reactor related MLU. Given there were reports we were having problems in reactivity controls in Arihant reactor our sophistication in designing HEU fueled reactor is in question atleast now though can't predict in the future . No country other than US has publicly acknowledged using HEU fuel in its sub core .

This data seems to be quite generic; might be available on website. Design of fuel pin is more crucial than no.s of fuel pins in this case considering heat transfer issues.

Reactor geometry is also important but we don't know Arihant's core geometry and highly unlikely it will be released.

 

[piKacHHu]

I think its better to discuss what teeth it has got rather than how the heart of the beast works in the defence forum. Anyway, acoustic signature is also a major issue that has to be resolved first if we need an edge over Chinese subs. Cavitation has to minimised for better stealth. The list goes on..

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

 

[warrior monk]

I think its better to discuss what teeth it has got rather than how the heart of the beast works in the defence forum. Anyway, acoustic signature is also a major issue that has to be resolved first if we need an edge over Chinese subs. Cavitation has to minimised for better stealth. The list goes on..

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

DT asymmetric SLBM K-4 and K-5 with MIRV will be our main stay of our SSBNs , India will probably put 250+ warheads in naval platforms in the future with 700+ in triad formation with fissile material for 2200 warheads in nuclear bunkers.
We should try to make our submarine's SL spectrum relative to 1 Pa at 1m 1kHz at 110 to 100 db and at relative to (1 Pa at 1 m) >200Hz at 120 db at less than 6 knots .

We should try to use low magnetic Special High Yield steel alloys like HY-156 which could operate at 650 mtrs or crush depth .

Aim for a open circulation reactor and ducted propellers for lower acoustic signature due to cavitation . Chinese are also introducing ducted propellers.

 

[Gessler]

DT asymmetric SLBM K-4 and K-5 with MIRV will be our main stay of our SSBNs , India will probably put 250+ warheads in naval platforms in the future with 700+ in triad formation with fissile material for 2200 warheads in nuclear bunkers.
We should try to make our submarine's SL spectrum relative to 1 Pa at 1m 1kHz at 110 to 100 db and at relative to (1 Pa at 1 m) >200Hz at 120 db at less than 6 knots .

We should try to use low magnetic Special High Yield steel alloys like HY-156 which could operate at 650 mtrs or crush depth .

Aim for a open circulation reactor and ducted propellers for lower acoustic signature due to cavitation . Chinese are also introducing ducted propellers.

Spot on with the triad numbers!

I have been calculating lately...let us assume that the future 20,000-ton "S-5" SSBN has 12 launch silos, with
each silo containing a K-5 SLBM with MIRVs. And there could be a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 such submarines ultimately.

If we assume each missile comes with 3 MIRVs (absolute minimum), then that puts 36 nukes on each submarine, or 108 for the whole class. Let's assume with 6 MIRVs, that makes 216 warheads on the SSBNs.

Now add the possibility of us building 5 instead of 3 of these boomers, in a 3-MIRV configuration it gives us 180 warheads and a 6-MIRV config presents a total of 360 nuclear warheads for the strategic underwater leg of the triad.

Ofcourse I'm not taking any possible decoys into account.

--

SFC will require at least 50 nukes for air-launching through standoff cruise missiles/free-fall bombs. The land-based requirements, the principle first-strike element in our scenario, doesn't even need any special mention.

Agni-4, Agni-5 and Agni-6 (with the last one in that order having an advertised payload capacity of 3,000kg) form a crucial part of the triad against China & Pak and it's safe to assume atleast 100-150 nukes in ready-to-fire mode (onboard missiles in hermetically-sealed canister launchers) and atleast 100 more tactical/strategic nukes in loose form or onboard cruise missiles like Nirbhay.

Plus I did not take into account submarine-launched cruise missiles with nukes. After the S-5 SSBNs are here, all 3 Arihants will be converted to SSGN role with Nirbhay SLCM and possibly BrahMos as well.

 

[warrior monk]

Spot on with the triad numbers!

I have been calculating lately...let us assume that the future 20,000-ton "S-5" SSBN has 12 launch silos, with
each silo containing a K-5 SLBM with MIRVs. And there could be a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 such submarines ultimately.

If we assume each missile comes with 3 MIRVs (absolute minimum), then that puts 36 nukes on each submarine, or 108 for the whole class. Let's assume with 6 MIRVs, that makes 216 warheads on the SSBNs.

Now add the possibility of us building 5 instead of 3 of these boomers, in a 3-MIRV configuration it gives us 180 warheads and a 6-MIRV config presents a total of 360 nuclear warheads for the strategic underwater leg of the triad.

Ofcourse I'm not taking any possible decoys into account.

--

SFC will require at least 50 nukes for air-launching through standoff cruise missiles/free-fall bombs. The land-based requirements, the principle first-strike element in our scenario, doesn't even need any special mention.

Agni-4, Agni-5 and Agni-6 (with the last one in that order having an advertised payload capacity of 3,000kg) form a crucial part of the triad against China & Pak and it's safe to assume atleast 100-150 nukes in ready-to-fire mode (onboard missiles in hermetically-sealed canister launchers) and atleast 100 more tactical/strategic nukes in loose form or onboard cruise missiles like Nirbhay.

Plus I did not take into account submarine-launched cruise missiles with nukes. After the S-5 SSBNs are here, all 3 Arihants will be converted to SSGN role with Nirbhay SLCM and possibly BrahMos as well.

It depends upon the diameter of of K-4/K-5 slbms they are trying to cap the height of the missiles at 13.1 meters given the pontoon testing of K-4 I think they may have achieved it . Agni-6 will have features which will have similarity with k-4/K-5 which means MIRV tech will be tested on Agni-6 before going on K-4/K-5 .
3 warhead configuration will be used as 5 warhead configuration will require bigger missiles so S2, S3 S4 and S5 carry 4 K-4s each with 3 warheads per missile will give us 48 warheads in total and in the future the 3 larger subs with 24 missiles each with 3 warheads means total of 216 warheads which gives a grand total of 264 warheads though it is bound to change.

In air platform 46 nuclear capable MKI and around 2 squardons of DPSAs Rafale will be in nuclear strike role so 100+ warheads there.

Well were churning out 20 Agnis a year in 2004 God knows how many we churn now. Though making enough fissile material for 100+ nuclear warheads a year we should make a lot more Agnis .

 

[tharun]

It is between 80 to 86 MWth not MWe as real figures have not been revealed yet for this boat or anything like its SHP , cycle rate , burn up level , amount of fuel loading etc so every thing is in the area of pure guess work.

Thermal energy conversion for a nuclear reactor would be around 30-35% that means 80-86MWt would be 24-28 MWe...same as virginia class attack submarine........

 

[tharun]

We can use INS Arihant to attack submarine we don't need new designs but more technology to be used to make it more lethal...
INS Arihant..uses 12 K-15 with a diameter of 0.74 meters...
We can make those tubes little bigger and can accomdate 12x2=24 brahmos submarine
Same make tubes to 1.5m diameter so we can have 12x3=36 nirbhay cruise missiles...

 

[Superdefender]

@Gessler & @warrior monk, S3 (Aridhaman), S4 will be of same size. I am assuming close to 8,000 tn. There may be another S4*, but it will be of same size too. They will carry 8 x K-4 SLBMs. Then, 3 S5 series subs will be built. Each will carry 12 x K-5 SLBM. Their displacement will be 12,000 tn (some sources say 10,000 tn too), but no where near 20,000 tn! Here, take a look.

 

[Gessler]

@Gessler & @warrior monk, S3 (Aridhaman), S4 will be of same size. I am assuming close to 8,000 tn.

The Aridhaman and forthcoming S4 will be absolutely the same size & displacement as Arihant, and they will incorporate only 4 silos with 4 K-4 Mk-1/2 SLBMs. They are all boats of the same class.

What you're saying is like Sahyadri & Satpura will be bigger & carrying more missiles than Shivalik. It doesn't work like that. They will all be of the same size.

There may be another S4*

Never heard of this. The number of Arihant-class vessels to be made was always only 3. Provided the fact that R&D on the improved, bigger reactors is already underway, it doesn't make any sense to keep fiddling around with a pseudo-SSBN like Arihant.

After the the S4 boat is delivered, the SBC together with L&T assistance will have to start a massive overhaul project of the dock & facilities to accommodate the significantly larger S5-class of true-blue SSBNs.

It is acceptable that after these S-5 vessels (either 3 or 5 of them) are delivered, the existing 3 Arihant-class boats will be relieved of the SSBN (strategic deterrence/second-strike) role and will then undergo a mid-life upgrade of sorts, before being pressed into service again under the guise of SSGNs, carrying the Nirbhay SLCM for tactical/strategic land-attack and a version of the BrahMos-NG or BrahMos-II for anti-shipping self-defence.

Their displacement will be 12,000 tn (some sources say 10,000 tn too), but no where near 20,000 tn! Here, take a look.

The most informed source on the matter (Prasun K. Sengupta) says they will be around the 20,000 tons category. The Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) has revealed an illustration of the S-5 while advertising for it's SSS I-12 submarine defence sonar suite, which is being developed for the same.

To date, the above illustration remains the only viable precursor to what the S-5 class could look like. Even by looking at design, you can tell that there is a strong resemblance to the Delta-IV class. The Delta-IV SSBN has a reported submerged displacement of somewhere near 18,200 to 19,000 tons.

It's possible the inclusion of different nuclear/pressure technology, materials etc. may have offset the weight-loss gained by removing 4 silos from the original Delta-IV/improved design.

I'm sure his sources (they're good) have confirmed whatever he has revealed over the years. If it wasn't for Prasun, no-one in the defence reporting fraternity would even have a hair's-breadth clue that a submarine project called S-5 was even being contemplated. It was the time when everyone was thinking we'll be building 6 or so boats of the Arihant-class!

That infographic you posted is in no way an official representation, most likely seems like a figment of imagination.

I trust his (Prasun's) sources. If you don't want to, that's your choice and I'm going to force you to trust him.

The infographic also get's the K-5 missile's range wrong. It has been officially revealed in a DRDO presentation by VK Saraswat that K-5 SLBM will have a 6,000+ km range. Prasun quotes this range as 6,500km.

The plan to cap missile silos at 12 may have come from the fact that this K-5 has almost twice the payload capacity of the R-29 series missiles that originally equipped the Delta, and also remains significantly larger than what even the RSM-56 Bulava or the Trident-II D5 can carry over those ranges. Basing this statement on the US/Russian SLBM's payload-to-range figures revealed as per START doctrine.

 

[Superdefender]

@Gessler, thanks for replying, but I will not believe you. The K-5 range, which you provided, may be correct. But how can a 20,000 tn SSBN carry just 12 x K-5 SLBMs? It's way too low. 12,000 tn is just spot right. Look simillar weight class of Chinese SSBN and compare. They are still ahead of us tn per tn. Their 12,000 tn SSBN can carry more no. of SLBMs and they have longer range too (7,000-8,000km)! I know I am being rude, but I can't agree with you. India will jump from 6k tn to directly 20k tn, a big LOLZ. And about Aridhaman size, please give me link, otherwise not believe you.

 

[warrior monk]

S3 (Aridhaman), S4 will be of same size. I am assuming close to 8,000 tn. There may be another S4*, but it will be of same size too. They will carry 8 x K-4 SLBMs. Then, 3 S5 series subs will be built. Each will carry 12 x K-5 SLBM. Their displacement will be 12,000 tn (some sources say 10,000 tn too), but no where near 20,000 tn! Here, take a look.

Arihant's weight is not known as information is sketchy but according to Bharat Karnad it is already 8000 tonnes submerged .
Arihant can carry 4 K-4 SLBMs or 12 K-15 SLBMs. The S3 and S4 will be bigger than Arihant though how big we don't know though collectively they will be known as the Arihant class having the same features like SL level , Cavitation signature , coolant pump signature , poison burn capability , probably twin hulled . reactive control ,propeller geometry ( seven bladed skewed ) etc essentially having the same overall signature but probably different payloads.
After S2 , S3 and S4 Six larger subs are supposed to be built how much larger I don't know they might make a HEU fueled for better density, zircalloy clad having canned motor reactor coolant pumps which will definitely help to reduce the acoustic signature . Adopt a "digital instrumentation and control (I&C) system to improve the functioning and reliability of the reactor , ducted fan will have to be introduced to shroud the propeller which will reduce SL level by reducing cavitation which can be picked up by sonobuoys or any passive detector arrays .
SSBNs isn't about just size of reactors or the payload it needs to be able to reduce the acoustic signature otherwise it will be pretty much useless.

@Gessler thanks for the C-Deep pic I was looking for it .I think it is probably K-5 with Nose fairings , aero spikes and all composite casings nice , but the payload is sad will not be able to carry our thermonuclear warheads .

 

[Gessler]

@Gessler, thanks for replying, but I will not believe you. The K-5 range, which you provided, may be correct. But how can a 20,000 tn SSBN carry just 12 x K-5 SLBMs? It's way too low. 12,000 tn is just spot right. Look simillar weight class of Chinese SSBN and compare. They are still ahead of us tn per tn. Their 12,000 tn SSBN can carry more no. of SLBMs and they have longer range too (7,000-8,000km)! I know I am being rude, but I can't agree with you. India will jump from 6k tn to directly 20k tn, a big LOLZ.

Our submarine-making prowess is still in it's infancy compared to that of P5 states (including China), so it is highly unlikely that our designs would have the same levels of progress wrt to metallurgy and hull fabrication. Even today and for the foreseeable future, the technology is mostly (if not completely) derived from Soviet technology of the 70s and 80s. All the progress we are making with the Arihant is concerning internal electronics, sonar tech etc. but the all-important hull & reactor mechanics remain to be of Soviet vintage.

Even the S-5 will largely rely on these technologies and therefore the weight-class, in all probability will be similar to the Delta-IV eventhough it would get 4 silos lesser. As I said, other aspects could offset that loss.

This is something we hope to improve upon in our forthcoming SSN project, where we are presently looking at acquiring more advanced hull-fabrication techniques and metallurgy-related know-how from DCNS. It's very likely that our SSNs would be based off the Barracuda-class or the Scorpene-based S-BR that Brazil is getting.

That said, there is no international benchmark for tonnage-to-missiles ratio for an SSBN. The US subs carry 24, British/French carry 16, even the latest Russian Borei-class carries only 16, but has a displacement of over 24,000 tons submerged!

With the advent of reliable MIRVs & MARVs, combined with much-improved electronics and survivability measures, the number of SLBM silos needed on a submarine can be drastically reduced without much loss to strategic deterrent.

It seems likely that IN/GoI have decided that 12 silos are sufficient for India's needs. It may or may not have had anything to do with the level of submarine-building technology currently available to us.

And about Aridhaman size, please give me link, otherwise not believe you.

You don't have to believe in anything out of the blue...the Aridhaman's hull fabrication is already completed and you could see some pics of it by end of this year with your own two eyes. I will let you decide what to believe in at that point.

 

[Gessler]

Arihant's weight is not known as information is sketchy but according to Bharat Karnad it is already 8000 tonnes submerged .

No one knows how much Arihant's submerged displacement could be. If someone says it is 8000 tons, I have no reason to believe them, nor do I have any reason to dismiss them.

But one thing is for sure, all three Arihant-class boats are the same displacement, and carry the same amount of silos. The SLBM in question for Arihant would only be the K-4 Mk.1 (3500km) and any improved version in future like K-4 Mk.2 (4500km or so).

The K-15/B-05 is just a rushed conversion of the Shaurya NLOS-BSM meant to validate SLBM technologies and launch concepts, acting as a testbed.

While operationally out there ensuring India's second-strike capability, no-one is going to play around with the K-15, or trade one K-4 for 3 of these smaller missiles. On operational duty, Arihants are only ever going to be equipped with K-4 SLBMs which ensure the best possibility of delivering nuclear payloads over long distances, without having to endanger the survivability of the SSBN itself by coming in closer to the coasts.

 

[warrior monk]

No one knows how much Arihant's submerged displacement could be. If someone says it is 8000 tons, I have no reason to believe them, nor do I have any reason to dismiss them.

Seeing that Arihant is 6000 tonnes surfaced it would be possible that Arihant would probably have 8000 tonnes as submerged displacement.

The SLBM in question for Arihant would only be the K-4 Mk.1 (3500km) and any improved version in future like K-4 Mk.2 (4500km or so).

there is an mk-1 and mk-2 version of K-4 SLBM ??

It is acceptable that after these S-5 vessels (either 3 or 5 of them) are delivered, the existing 3 Arihant-class boats will be relieved of the SSBN (strategic deterrence/second-strike) role and will then undergo a mid-life upgrade of sorts, before being pressed into service again under the guise of SSGNs, carrying the Nirbhay SLCM for tactical/strategic land-attack and a version of the BrahMos-NG or BrahMos-II for anti-shipping self-defence.

Do you have any time periods for the future SSBN class after the three Arihant class because I don't think it would be easy to build a 20000 tonne SSBN without first making a 220 to 250 Mwt 4th gen reactor we would probably require 100000 + shp and we are still in 2nd generation with S2 reactor with moderately enriched fuel . A significant upgrade of reactor technology will be required , we cannot go the soviet way using using twin reactors for redundancy as it will require significant amount of fuel . If Sengupta is right it will take more than 15 years for a single such submarine to join our force and we will need a significant upgrade of project Varsha for handling such reactor.
I don't think Arihant or any of its class will ever see SSN/SSGN duty as its reactor is underpowered which will reduce its cruise speed which makes it a good SSBN not an good SSN/SSGN.

This is something we hope to improve upon in our forthcoming SSN project, where we are presently looking at acquiring more advanced hull-fabrication techniques and metallurgy-related know-how from DCNS. It's very likely that our SSNs would be based off the Barracuda-class or the Scorpene-based S-BR that Brazil is getting.

For India to ever take on Chinese SSNs and SSGNs Barracuda class is not it though Barracudas have SYCOBS (système de combat pour Barracuda et SSBN) the battle management system which is a class in itself rest all features is not sufficient to take on Chinese SSNs or SSGNs .The problem with Barracuda class is that the submarine has four 533mm torpedo tubes and only carries 18 torpedoes which is low for a SSN especially if we are going to go up against Chinese type 095 SSNs . Barracuda is an excellent small sub compared to other SSNs with hybrid propulsion electric for normal use and pump-jet for cruising which is good for SSBN escort not a hot war sub. We should rather work with the Russians as we already used their OK-650 reactor geometry of 971 it would be foolish to go for French small SSNs which uses a different reactor we should stick to our tried and tested method .

 

[Superdefender]

Thanks @warrior monk & @Gessler for replying.
American Ohio class ssbn displaces 16,000tn when surfaced. Each can carry
24 Trident-II SLBMs (Wt: 59,000kg, Range: 12,000km).
French Triomphant class ssbn displaces 12,000tn when surfaced. Each can carry
16 M51 SLBMs (Wt: 52,000kg, Range: 10,000km).
Indian Arihant class ssbn displaces 6,000tn when surfaced. Each can carry
4 K-4 SLBMs (Wt: 17,000kg, Range: 3,500km).
What I want to say is, just don't say they have 24 or 16 SLBMs, you have to
consider the weight of their SLBM. If you have heavy SLBM (which implies that
SLBM has more range), you have to built a heavy SSBN. If I am not wrong, not a
single Trident-II or M51 will fit in Arihant if they want to (becuse of their
weights). And those are heavily Mirved too! It is 2016 and we still rely on old
Rus's tech of 70's/80's. And @Gessler is saying S-5 is 20,000tn!!! How can we
leapfrog from S4 to directly 20k tn, that is out of my thinking.