October 1, 2019

Indian Nuclear Submarines Update

Since 2009 Submarine Matters has regularly provided updates on India's nuclear submarines. This goes back to the old name of this website “Australia By The Indian Ocean” (which Pete wrote around 2007 – 2011) and then increasing interest in submarines. In more recent years GhalibKabir (GK) has provided comments and links on these matters.

INDIAN SSBNs

The sequence of Indian SSBNs goes by S numbers:

S-1 (or S1) was an onshore test nuclear reactor reliant on extensive and expensive Russian assistance.

S-2 is INS Arihant, launched 2009, around 6,000 tonnes, a prototype SSBN constructed to test: 
-  stealth/quieting architecture, 
-  nuclear propulsion of the slow start-stop 83MW reactor, 
-  inadequate K-15 or "K15" missiles (with a safe firing point-range only adequate to hit coastal
   Pakistani cities, like Karachi) and K4 (3,500km range capable of hitting all Pakistan, central and
   southern-most China (eg. China’s Yulin/Hainan SSBN/SSN base, Guangzhou and Hong Kong)
-  central computer processing
-  combat system including sensors also to operate the 6 torpedo tubes
-  command and control, and crew procedures including damage control

S-3 INS Arighat (with expected name "Aridhaman" cancelled) incorporates upgrades and refinements which would likely include improved stealth/quieting, improved quality of missile cold launch capabilities while the sub is still moving (Pete thinks the numbers of silos remain at 4 rather than less likely 8(?)) and other SSBN aspects. GK commented September 25 “The older [2011] videos of the Layner SLBM launch by Russia are clear proof imho that the K-4 Cold launch technique was taught by Russia to India.” GK commented September 25 “The S-3 should trial [in 2020] hopefully as it is just a replica [hence 4 silos?] of Arihant (S-3 Arighat launched 11/2017)

S-4 and S-4* S-4 [not launched in 2018]  GK commented September 25. 2019  "I really don't know if they will be constructedSome say, the S4 keel has been already laid and it is under construction. I am not so sure. I think the 6,000 ton Arihant and Arighat will serve as good training platforms" [Pete comments – My November 2018 report may be wrong. At just 7,000 tonnes (1,000 tonnes heavier than Arihant and Arighat) once thought future S4 or S4*’s hull diameter could not accommodate the tallness of a K-5 or K-6 missile – so S4 and S5 would only amount to high priced make-work projects for a SSBN continuous build program]

S-5 [at Wiki and at Submarine MattersGK commented September 25, 2019 "S-5 should trial by late 2020s. [The S5 weighing 13,500 tonnes will have] K-5 or K-6 MIRV SLBMs [to] takes over as the sea leg of India's Nuclear Triad.
[Pete comment – a K-5 SLBM with a range of 5,000km would be inadequate from a Bay of Bengal launch point to hit all of China (especially Beijing). So India’s S-5 SSBN will need to be large enough/have a sufficient diameter to fit or retrofit a taller K-6 missile with a range of 8,000km. Also increased range to 8,000km would provide for a safer Indian SSBN launch point south of the rather closed Bay of Bengal (a bay where Chinese SSNs and SSKs may lie in wait for Indian SSBNs). China, with its improved relations with Bangladesh, Thailand and maybe Myanmar, may also more readily be able to string fixed undersea sensors that could focus on Indian SSBNs in the Bay of Bengal). Similarly Chinese undersea sensors strung across the Indian Ocean to the Seychelles and/or Mauritius may improve China’s ability to track nuclear submarines.]

INDIAN SSNs

CIMSEC commented "in February 2015, the Modi government accorded political approval for six SSNs." [Pete Comment - The main function of SSNs are to carry out patrols to protect SSBNs. For India this would be especially when its SSBNs are leaving the main Indian east coast naval base of Vishakhapatnam to go on deterrent patrol and re-entering Vishakhapatnam.].

GK commented September 25, 2019  [Russia turned down India’s offer to lease a Yasen SSN or provide related late model SSN Yasen level help]. [Russia instead offered “Chakra-3” an Akula lease and India accepted.] "Considering the perennial French struggle with LEU [submarine] reactors and their perceived drawbacks, I think India will try to or is already possibly duplicating the [Russian] HEU 190MWt OK-650B Akula reactor for [India’s] own SSN."

[CIMSEC commented "in February 2015 "Consequently, for [India's next SSBN may be called Arindhaman], there is a clear need to upgrade the reactor. The Arihant has an 85-MWt reactor (≈17 MWe, since in a naval reactor, roughly 5 MWt = 1 MWe). The one for the larger and heavier Arindham[an] will need to be somewhere between 160-190 MWt (32-38 MWe) and this is an upgrade that is ongoing."]

GK commented September 25, 2019 "As far as [GK is] concerned, the bigger focus should be on the SSN combat suite and sonar capability, where I think India should put its experience with TKMS and DCNS [now Naval Group] to good use. Especially the low frequency cylindrical array passive sonar etc. which are useful in hunting enemy SSNs. But a fully Indian SSN is unlikely before 2035 as things stand.”

GK commented September 25, 2019 I don't think the French gave any [SLBM] missile or reactor related help. [The French] consultancy I assume (ongoing) is for non-reactor/[Exocet?] missile design aspects of subs (probably SSNs under the garb of the Scorpene project). This is conjecture at best and very likely the French 'help' way more limited than the Russians.” [Pete Comment: France's Naval Group (was DCNS) may possibly have passed on some non-nuclear details useful for SSNs as part of India's current Kalvari class Scorpene Project and maybe in the future Project 75I (for India) bid.]

GhalibKabir (GK), Pete and CIMSEC  

21 comments:

GhalibKabir said...

I highly doubt India will be using the Exocet in the SSNs (at 180 km, too short ranged to be useful barring open sea surface fleet targeting).

India's Scorpenes use them Exocets while two refitted IN Type-209s use Harpoon UGM-84s (the Kilos use the Kalibr called the Club-S in Indian service (MTCR range limited to 300 km as they were imported before 2016))

The SSNs (I am willing to wager), will be most likely loaded out with a mix of Nirbhay LACM and Brahmos extended range (450 km or 600 km versions) in a more AShM role.

The Nirbhay as things stand uses a fuel inefficient Turbojet limiting its range to ~650 km wheareas under test Manik Turbofan (4 kN power?) will allow for 1,000 km + targeting (650 km is still a good stand off range to begin with and not necessarily a handicap)

The torpedoes may be either the domestic Varunastra or possibly a German or French one if alternatives are needed.

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir

India's use of 3 distinct types of anti-ship missile depending on the SSK-class must cause considerable command and control, training, maintenance, supply and spare parts problems.

Is there any scope for standardizing use of Nirbhay LACMs and BrahMos anti-ship/land attack missiles across all Indian SSKs, SSBNs and future SSNs?

Regards

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

Spare parts availability is not an issue, but multiple platforms, I assume are not the most easiest in terms of management.

The Russians were the only ones that stood with India followed to an extent by France (at least till the late 1990s), hence their systems found prominence.

However, post-2008, US arms deals have allowed the Harpoon to be retrofitted to the 209 SSKs.

In the SSNs (SSGNs considering the cruise missiles), Nirbhay LACMs and Brahmos AShMs may be made standrd while in the SSBNs it will be the K Series SLBMs. The Varunastra torpedo might become common to both. I would expect this to be replicated in any Kilo SSKs in the future with Brahmos and Nirbhay (through torpedo tubes if required)

Pete said...

A very good article by Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan in The Diplomat (paysite) titled “The Trouble with India’s Slow Naval Buildup” dated October 04, 2019 at https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/the-trouble-with-indias-slow-naval-buildup/

There is much detail on India’s current and future SSK’s and their torpedos and future AIP.

It is mostly correct except where it states:

“INS Khanderi was manufactured by Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited at a cost of 187.98 billion rupees (about $2.6 billion) under an India-France bilateral agreement in 2005 to build six Scorpene class submarines in India.”

I am under the impression the US$2.6 billion was the total cost of the whole Kalvari class (Project 75) for 6 Scorpenes.

GhalibKabir said...

entire cost being 2.6 bil is right. With the AIP she is right. On the torpedo front, thanks to Sonia Gandhi and her corrupt cabal, a long series of Finmeccanica deals incl. AW 101s, torpedoes etc came under the vigilance commissioner scanner and were cancelled. Considering the Varunastra being deployed already and this government doing quick ad hoc deals to plug holes (the spike missile deal being an example), I assume we will muddle along.

I agree overall that India should be more focused on naval abilities. They are paying attention but not sufficient considering the chinese pace of naval expansion. Recent years have seen good upgrades. 209s getting missile firing abilities, sonar upgrades etc., new frigates

But the SSN progam and the aircraft carrier program is very delayed and so are the programs like bigger destroyers in terms of VLSes (a Renhai 55 has 112-128 VLS, nearly 2.5-3 times a Vishakhapatnam class). Also VDS (variable depth sonars) are also lacking...

pakistan is easily handled if things come to that.. China will be only deterred if India is at least half as powerful as China... a tall task needing a lot of dedication and single mindedness like China themselves. Modi or 10 like him are not enough.. will need a fundamental transformation in the ordinary citizenry's committment levels.

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir [re your October 5, 2019 at 9:13 AM]

Thanks for your reply. India's multiple SSK's and multiple missile platforms (Western AND Russian) are made even more possible by India's non-aligned status.

The US may be getting more into selling to India for profits (of course) and to wean India off Russian systems (to an extent).

I imagine Russian work to make its P-800 Oniks missile compatible for Russian Navy submarines will ease the technology path for Indian torpedo tube fired BrahMos (being related to P-800 Oniks) on India Kilos and future SSNs/SSGNs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir [your October 5, 2019 at 4:59 PM]

Muddling inefficiency also effects Australia's arms purchases - especially regarding the Tiger attack helicopter purchase and and Seasprite modifications (each project wasting A$1 Billion)

TKMS submarines built in Germany and South Korea have has especially good sales, performance and upgrade records.

Will Australia rue the day it didn't add South Korea to the SEA 1000 list given South Korea a year ago actually launched a 3,000+ ton submarine LAST YEAR that might have responded to Australia's size requirements? see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/09/likely-extra-specifications-for-south.html

Yes India's aircraft carrier program is another area that needs work. Reliance on Russian/Ukrainian designs and carrier aircraft might be a big mistake when the UK, Spain and Italy have been successfully churning out medium-large carriers compatible with F-35Bs.

As China's nuclear dominance accelerates India may need to adopt a nuclear deterrence policy similar to Israel's and France's 1960s onwards policies of doing unacceptable damage towards Soviet Union/Russia. That is India cannot attain nuclear deterrent parity with China but it can do unacceptable damage in a nuclear war to China's cities over 10,000,000 population ie.

Shanghai — 23.4 million people.
Beijing — 18.8 million people.
Tianjin — 12.8 million people.
Shenzhen — 12.7 million people.
Guangzhou — 11.6 million people and
Chengdu — 10.2 million people.

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Weapons-Coercive-Diplomacy-Sechser-ebook/dp/B01LX1LTNG/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_img_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6F7HYXQGJKNAZRT05MF2

and one more fantastic book is Seaforth Naval Review with the 2020 version releasing next month

https://www.amazon.com/Seaforth-World-Naval-Review-2020/dp/1526760622/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=seaforth+naval+review+2019&qid=1570802623&s=digital-text&sr=1-4-catcorr

both put together less than SGD/AUD 100 and worth every dollar spent.

The book by Sechser offers very vital clues on Chinese behavior and India's room for maneuver.

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir

Thanks for the notice on "Nuclear Weapons Coercive Diplomacy" and "Seaforth Naval Review 2020".

I'll give them to me as Christmas presents.

Cheers

Pete

Pete said...

Hi again GhalibKabir

The anonymous US and Indian experts at StrategyPage have penned an excellent set of comments and facts concerning India's current Project 75 titled "Project Submarines: Sad Scorpene Scandal" October 14, 2019 at https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20191014.aspx

Some of the gems include:

"In Mumbai, India, the second of six Scorpene submarines was recently turned over to the navy by the Mazgaon shipyard. The first one was delivered in late 2017. The bad news is that the Indian effort to build six French designed Scorpene submarines under license has been delayed numerous times...Currently, these Scorpenes cost over $800 million each."

"...Building the subs in India is very important because it will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines. But it appears that all this is wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials were responsible for numerous delays and cost overruns during negotiations to build these diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is now more than five years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started."

"...After the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade India finally signed a deal to buy the Scorpenes in 2005, The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components and India has problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. India insisted that all six be built in India. While some problems were expected, after all India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades, the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work or just getting in the way...It's not like this was a surprise, but the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy has long been noted as slow, sloppy, and stubborn, especially in the face of demands that it speed up."

"...The procurement bureaucracy is still seeking a supplier for the second batch [Project 75I] of six diesel-electric subs after Scorpene. This second six probably won’t even begin arriving by the end of the decade. It's hard to say, although the defense procurement nabobs speak of "fast-tracking" this project, long-time observers are not expecting speed. France is offering the next generation Scorpene which is a little larger than the current ones and improved in several areas."

"Moreover, India insists that some of that equipment be manufactured in India, and that introduces even more complications and delays. Indian firms have a spotty track record in this area.

[Following is a true gem which is also true of Australian politicians in Canberra and Adelaide] "This drives up costs but for the politicians, this is a benefit, not a problem, as those cost overruns mean more money and jobs for supporters. That’s how you get reelected and many government employees have jobs more to obtain votes than to get anything useful done."

"...While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani boats, both because of less advanced technology and less well-trained crews..."

Much more in that article.

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

I will accept the bureaucratic lethargy bit (they have even resisted the late Def Min. Parrikar and the PM Modi), and I have qualms accepting that the bungles have left India's SSK program delayed (remember they lost a lot of the stuff that HDW taught them in the late 80s-90s when the Type-209 was being built).

But, then things get very interesting, as for the French offering an advanced Scorpene and the SP (Strategic Procurement) bit, here things get more tricky. the accepted consensus in Delhi is that in return for billions spent on SSK programs, the level of ToT has been highly unsatisfactory. This was glaringly apparent when DCNS gave Australia a better level of ToT while inadvertently revealing that it had screwed India on that front.

That, along with media harlots planted by arms brokers, arms sales companies keep drip feeding this idea that India's ability to absorb technology or workmanship is somehow too shoddy for a decent ToT. Endless counter examples exist to show that while things are far from satisfactory, things are not as bad as these 'veiled marketing campaigns for 100% imports' suggest all the time..

It is an on-going tussle that is unlikely to die down soon. The 75I is delayed quite a bit, the SP plan for 'Make in India' has had too hard to meet standards and has been bungled a fair bit..all that is true, but equally, billions in cash has not given the level of ToT which was fairly expected in return. Modi's govt has rightly concluded that India's economic heft means the congress era pusillanimity needs to go...

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir

Yes the StrategyPage article at https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20191014.aspx seemed to nail SSK building by India without any serious comparison to other countries.

I can only think of the US and Japan (that have been inventing then continuous building submarines for decades) as being more efficient in what is an inefficient industry internationally. South Korea efficiently manufactures German designs, though the
KSS-III/3000 incorporates some Korean content. The efficiencies or otherwise of Chinese industry is opaque.

ToT or Transfer of Technology may have been more plentifully supplied to Australia because Australia tends Not to haggle on price with its French submarine and (since the early 2000s) US combat system suppliers. Australia appears to follow the higher the sums to foreign firms employing the most Australians in key electoral areas (especially Adelaide and now tending to Perth) the better.

All many leveled and complex.

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

the haggle bit about India is actually not that pertinent/true. That is more an image and less a reality in the technology/military realm. e.g. The Rafale deal for 36 jets came at 9 billion USD or 250 million a jet, which is exactly comparable to what Qatar or Egypt paid. In fact given the Mirage MRO facilities in India & commonality with the Rafale, the costs should have been lower. One can speculate with a good degree of certainty that some of that 9 billion includes padded up payments for SSN design consulting and other 'strategic projects' consulting support.

Also remember, the Frenchies and Russkies get paid top dollar to deliver ToT/ 'show me' deals and they have exacted a very steep price for their services consistently with the French indulging in virtual price gouging a number of times. So i won't buy this argument about Australia not haggling being some kind of advantage.

Me thinks, more pragmatically, owing to Aus being viewed as a Western Country located in the Southern Hemisphere, close bonds with US, Canada, UK etc. via WW-II era ANZAC, other economic linkages...that is what swings the pendulum for Aus.... frankly India has buying power if it really thinks it needs some capability badly...the eye popping money paid for Gorshkov/INS Vikramditya being a case in point.

PS: from what I do read, the later builds of the Shang 093G SSNs and some of the newer AIP SSKs are pretty darn good in terms of quality and speed of workmanship...

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir

My generalisations are probably a bit unfair. Intriguing that India may be quitly paying France for SSN design consulting and other 'strategic projects' consulting support.

As well as "Shang 093G SSNs and some of the newer AIP SSKs are pretty darn good in terms of quality and speed of workmanship" China seems to be moving steadily building ever larger, more capable aircraft carriers and stealthier jets.

I real worry when China produces quantity now enhanced by quality.

Regards

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

One of the thought processes in the Indian establishment apparently is considering the use of LEU as a naval reactor fuel to enable downblending of HEU stocks. Considering French use of LEU for decades now and India being joined at the hip with DCNS for SSK builds, an SN-BR style non-nuclear aspects consulting for design aspects of the SSN is very much possible and has been rumored strongly over the years.

However, the reactor is the most challenging aspect for an Indian SSN and there details are scarce and public information tells us the support for a LEU reactor design from the French side has been negligible to nil.

As for China, blighters have been pouring cash into building naval fleets are tearaway speed. The type 001A is in trials and two more are already under construction including the 85,000 Type 002 plus they have built out SSNs at a rate one every 9-11 months and newer SSBNs are being planned at astonishing speed. The SSK build out is almost a side story here and the numbers are breathtaking... more than a dozen ultramodern SSKs in the last few years alone. Also rendered a side story are the crazy surface builds... 6 type-55 Renhai and 4-5 newer Type 52Ds and god knows how many more type-54 frigates etc... The 55s have 112-128 VLS, the 52s have 64-80 VLS and the 54s have around 32-40 VLS... that is a Tom Clancy style roll out... should make any regional navy have some very unpleasant bowel movements...the 10 cruisers and destroyers alone add 1,000 VLS worth CJ-10s, HQ-16s etc..

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir

Re your October 21, 2019 comment.

I tend to see it as unlikely India would forego Russian assistance with an almost first rate HEU? Reactor and SSN design with the

Alternative of a French SN-BR (no reactor provided) type arragement.

However if France/Naval Group (NG) sold a complete (reactor and all) Barracuda SSN to India that would be a different matter, favourable to India. NG might insist building the first export Barracuda in France - and then ToT to build the next 5 in India? Similar may happen to Australia after Australia builds only 4 likely conventional Attack-class Shortfins with French components by 2040.

China's massive, quick, maybe efficient (but opaque) programs to build carriers, frigates, SSKs, SSNs, and SSBNs of courses surpasses all but the US.

China has the biggest fish (US) to fry. So in 20 years, when China has the world's largest economy, it may have a Navy (and ASBMs) equal to the US+Indian Navies or US+Indian+Japanese Navies with (still Putin's) Russia Finlandized (vis a vis China).

Scary. Lets all start learning Mandarin!

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

After the Scorpene expose, I doubt DCNS ToT offer will be taken seriously...I still think India made a big mistake missing the bus on ToT when HDW was working on the 209 in the late 80s-90s in India (funnily enough India also (I think) missed the bus on Dassault offer on a Mirage 2000 ToT which was quite good apparently for the time)

PS: I think considering the power consumption needs for modern SSK combat suites like the ones on the 214 or the Scorpene, sometimes I wonder if the role of the AIP needs to be reevaluated.Please see my comment to the FC2G article.

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir [your October 31, 2019 at 10:06 AM]

I think arms trade interactions, like international relations generally, are always full of regrets, missed opportunities and what-ifs(?).

AIP is not a whole solution (unlike nuclear). AIP needs to work in cooperation with precharged batteries and diesel engines/fuel that recharge batteries, especially in longer missions than one-week Baltic of Singapore Strait stints.

Regards

Pete

Unknown said...

Is india building ssn on the design and technology of yasen class or French baracuda class?? Has they agreed to give us the tot for ssn??

Unknown said...

Is it pump jet propulsion which will be used in the ssn or propeller?? Public information telling that design has been completed and construction may have been started is it true??

Pete said...

Hi Unknown

Re your questions above of Aug 6, 2020 on India's Longterm (commission in 2030s) SSN project:

India is collecting overt and covert intelligence from all new SSN designing countries including:
- Russia (selling reactor and hull technology to India at great cost),
- France (combining some tech as sweetner with selling 6 more Scorpenes (Project-75(I) to India)
- as well as intel from UK, US, China and even Brazil (SN-BR).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Navy_SSN_programme advises On 24 June 2019, it was reported https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/work-begins-on-indias-next-gen-nuclear-powered-submarines/articleshow/69921014.cms
that a tiny US$14 million has been allocated for the initial phase of the project.

The SSNs will be designed by India's Directorate of Naval Design and the design development is expected to continue till 2025. Pete Comment - the tiny US$14 million budget indicates India is not serious – 100 times that, ie US1.4 Billion, is more like a serious budget for a New Nuclear submarine.

India’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishra_Dhatu_Nigam is developing a new pressure hull material that is expected to allow the submarine to dive to deeper depths than India’s Arihant class SSBN. The total cost of the project is estimated to be around US$14 billion.

In February 2020, The Economic Times https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indias-rs-1-2-l-cr-n-submarine-project-closer-to-realisation/articleshow/74234776.cms reported that the preliminary design phase of the programme has been successfully completed. The report stated that Submarine Design Group of the Directorate of Naval Design, assisted by DRDO, will now start working on the detailed design and construction phase of the program.

Re your pumpjet propulsion question – see todays’s http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/08/indias-drdos-alleged-submarine-pumpjet.html

Regards

Pete