INS Chakra/Akula II

[plugwater]

IIRC Typhoon != Akula.

Former is a SSBN while the latter is a SSN.

I too got confused over that.

Akula will be replaced by yasen class not Borei, Borei is a successor of typhoon class.

 

[plugwater]

I am all for India going into a shopping spree. Rather than let them tear those beauties apart, why not give them a new home with the Indian Navy?

Nooooo!!! No more second hand products from Russians and i dont think anyone can buy nuclear submarines, that is the reason we got akula in 10 years lease.

 

[plugwater]

not sure if it will happen or not, but i recall reading where this gentleman from russia had pointed out india could be buying "many" akulas, and it was reported on a russian news website first.

cant find that news now.

Not many!! maybe two but not confirmed, but Russians denied it according to them India ll get only one Akula.

 

[KS]

===================

 

[pmaitra]

IIRC Typhoon != Akula.

Former is a SSBN while the latter is a SSN.

Ok what you said is correct, but at the same time incorrect. Let me clear the confusion.

Project 941: USSR/RF Akula (Акула) = NATO Typhoon.
Project 971: USSR/RF Shchuka-B (Щука-Б) = NATO Akula.

This thread is about Project 941 Akula.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula_class_submarine
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine[/URL]

 

[plugwater]

Ok what you said is correct, but at the same time incorrect. Let me clear the confusion.

Project 941: USSR/RF Akula (Акула) = NATO Typhoon.
Project 971: USSR/RF Shchuka-B (Щука-Б) = NATO Akula.

Thanks Pmaitra.

Any reason behind why they have given Akula as Typhoon and Shchuka as Akula. It must have been easy if they had given Akula for Akula right ?

 

[pmaitra]

Thanks Pmaitra.

Any reason behind why they have given Akula as Typhoon and Shchuka as Akula. It must have been easy if they had given Akula for Akula right ?

I am making a guess based on some 'alleged' practices in the Soviet military projects. The USSR had this habit of changing project numbers and reassigning names and at times interchanging project numbers and names in order to confuse the NATO countries and their intelligence. Therefore, this, in all likelihood, was the handiwork of the Soviet Government by which they initially called Project 971 the Akula but later reassigned that name to Project 941 in order to confuse the NATO countries.

 

[pmaitra]

not sure if it will happen or not, but i recall reading where this gentleman from russia had pointed out india could be buying "many" akulas, and it was reported on a russian news website first.

cant find that news now.

If the Russians want us to be optimistic about a prospective Akula sale, they had better make us smile when they deliver Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and deliver it quickly.

Nooooo!!! No more second hand products from Russians and i dont think anyone can buy nuclear submarines, that is the reason we got akula in 10 years lease.

I guess if we can by nuclear reactors, we should be able to buy nuclear reactor powered submarines. We will not be able to buy the nuclear warheads. However, this is subject to confirmation.

 

[plugwater]

I guess if we can by nuclear reactors, we should be able to buy nuclear reactor powered submarines. We will not be able to buy the nuclear warheads. However, this is subject to confirmation.

I am almost sure buying nuclear powered submarines violates international treaties. I ll try to find out which treaties.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

Looking forward to see INDIA buy those beauties. Yeah, if at all INDIAN NAVY buy these submarines and use them as underwater missile barges then PLAN and PN both will have keep their eyes wide open.

 

[pmaitra]

I am almost sure buying nuclear powered submarines violates international treaties. I ll try to find out which treaties.

Ok, please do that. I could be wrong. I would look it up myself but I have a meeting tomorrow so I gotta go to bed. I'll come back and check this thread tomorrow. Thanks PW.

 

[agentperry]

its getting retired as a part of international treaty and not because of tech obsolescence or any design flaw. i think it should not affect the reputation of akula as a mighty nuke submarine. if inducted into Indian navy it will only enhance the capability of Indian navy and India as India dont have any thing even close to it. moreover if they decommision the akulas from their serving fleet then also the akula leased to India wont get affected as its not under their forces which means no obligatory retirement. as the retirement is only to make a balance between the platform and no of nukes deployed. this submarine will surely get retired once india gives it back after 10 years lease.
i find this news very good. first thing russia can no longer operate these submarines( because of start-3 only), the submarine is mighty, its operation by india is out of any international obligation and fourth seeing russia's economic might they will be more than happy to sell it to india then retiring( guess why?? exercise for home).

 

[bengalraider]

I am almost sure buying nuclear powered submarines violates international treaties. I ll try to find out which treaties.

The NPT does not permit the transfer of technology for naval nuclear propulsion, the barrier is mainly due to the higher level of enriched uranium in naval reactors . A typical Civilian LWR requires 2-3.5% enriched uranium compared to 20 upto 96% enriched fuel used in some american submarines for naval reactors(anything above 90% is weapons grade), this is mainly due to the size constraints in building a small enough reactor with enough punch to power a ship.
A Nation may however provide nuclear submarine Consultancy , the french are helping to build a Nuclear powered scorpene for the Brazilians & It's a well known fact the the Russians also helped us out with the Arihant. In fact the Entire nuclear Submarine can be sold apart from the propulsion system and SLBM's


Civilian land based reactors are much easier to safeguard and maintain than naval reactors and the technology is available far more easily as well, however things may change pretty soon as the lloyd's register is currently in the process of setting up guidelines and preparing draft rules for civilian nuclear ships.

Just a point of interest there have been four high profile nuclear powered civilian cargo vessels(other than atomic icebreakers)these are.
The American NS Savannah

NS Savannah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German ore carrier NS Otto Hahn

The Soviet Container ship NS Sevmorput

Sevmorput - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese NS Mutsu

Mutsu (ship) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NS Otto Hahn - Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship

Some interesting reading on Naval reactors can be found here
Disarmament Diplomacy: - Deep Seas and Deep-Seated Secrets: Naval Nuclear Fuel Stockpiles and The Need for Transparency

 

[debasree]

lets buy atleast six and induct it ,they will be potent assets in in for future conflictand discourage any adventure near our shore.

 

[pmaitra]

lets buy atleast six and induct it ,they will be potent assets in in for future conflictand discourage any adventure near our shore.

See the previous post. We cannot buy those subs. At most, we can lease them.

 

[bengalraider]

At the Best if cost is no barrier what we can do is buy a hull with all machinery other than the reactors( The Typhoons have two each) installed and then have it towed to VIZAG, wherein we convert the SSBN into a SSGN while also shoehorning in a couple of double size enlarged Arihant reactors into it!

Not commercially viable at all the costs would be stratospheric and it would be much more prudent to build a couple more arihant instead.
Still i'd love to see her in IN colours!

 

[pmaitra]

At the Best if cost is no barrier what we can do is buy a hull with all machinery other than the reactors( The Typhoons have two each) installed and then have it towed to VIZAG, wherein we convert the SSBN into a SSGN while also shoehorning in a couple of double size enlarged Arihant reactors into it!

Not commercially viable at all the costs would be stratospheric and it would be much more prudent to build a couple more arihant instead.
Still i'd love to see her in IN colours!

Note, we don't have a problem because we have refused to sign the NPT. Only Russia will not sell us those subs. However, you are right, we could actually place two Arihant reactors in it. Not sure whether this mating will be feasible, cost wise.

 

[agentperry]

Note, we don't have a problem because we have refused to sign the NPT. Only Russia will not sell us those subs. However, you are right, we could actually place two Arihant reactors in it. Not sure whether this mating will be feasible, cost wise.

so much of cutting and tearing will lead to decline in structural strength and over all life of submarine. its feasibility is doubtful.

 

[Neil]

we could actually ask french for help in making scorpene nuclear powered....we have the expertise and nuclear reactor...all we need is a little design change n voila r very own nuclear sub...without violating any treaties, in short span of time n i guess french have no problem if its SSBN or SSGN they love money....

 

[anoop_mig25]

Note, we don't have a problem because we have refused to sign the NPT. Only Russia will not sell us those subs. However, you are right, we could actually place two Arihant reactors in it. Not sure whether this mating will be feasible, cost wise.

buying is not allowed but is leashing is allowed? i want to know about i akula class submarine leashed by russia to india ,how so ? what are conditions on leashing a nuclear powered submarine.

if we can one submarine on leash of akula type then we can get other also