In response to
ghalibkabir’s comments about the K-4, of January
23, 2020 my comments are:
For several
reasons the K-4 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) may not be fully
deployed, economical or strategically effective until 2030. Since 2010 the K-4 has undergone several pontoon launches, one reported (but unproven) "dummy payload" submerged launch from INS Arihant on March 31, 2016 but then a failed pontoon launch on December 17, 2017 launch. Two successful pontoon launches took place on January 19 and 24, 2020. But the K-4 may need 3 years for 10 successful tests involving submarine launch and actual missile flight.
All launch
tubes in INS Arihant and INS Arighat may take 3 years to convert/develop for the
K-4. So maybe 2026 for full K-4 deployment on Arihant and Arighat.to be considered reliable.
India has been unable to develop multiple warheads/MIRVs per missile and may take 10 years to do so. Only one warhead per K-4 with only 4 K-4s from Arihant would not be a
economical/viable deterrent. A K-4 needs 3 or 4 warheads/MIRVs to be an
adequate weapon system on economic and strategic grounds. As Arihant and Arighat
can only take 4 x K-4s Chinese
anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems might be able to shoot all of them down. It is
unknown whether K-4s can deploy "penetration aids" such as chaff or decoys to compensate for the current
one warhead per K-4 problem. So India may take 10 years (until 2030) to finally develop reliable MIRVs.
It may take until 2030 for India to upgrade its SLBM warheads to standard, more easily miniaturised, two-stage thermonuclear. Ghalibkabir refers to is the K-4's warhead maybe having an explosive power
of 50 kT. This is perhaps insufficient to destroy deep dug Chinese command centers. 50 kT suggests India has only developed boosted fission nuclear weapons (as at the 1998 Shakti I test). India may not have developed more advanced 2-stage thermonuclear weapons (when on SLBMs often rated at 100-150 kT). 50 kT is less than SLBMs of other nuclear powers. For example Missile Threat indicates a Chinese JL-2 can deploy
one warhead of 1 MT or 3 to 8 MIRVs
with 20/90/150 kT warheads. Also China’s Type 094 “Jin class”
SSBNs deploy 12 JL-2s.
So the K-4 may
take until 2030 to be a fully deployed, economical and strategically effective SLBM.
Pete
Point 1
ReplyDeleteI agree on the K-4/5/6 testing bit... 2026 with 2 SSBNs might be first time India might truly have a 365 day sub-patrol option with a truly tested 3-4,000 km range SLBM. The Kasturirangan metric calls for multiple tests and that is what will happen I think. Also, remember the main problem still remains, should the sea leg carry mated warheads?
India's boosted fission device test was one of the best outcome tests in the Shakti-II series. Conservatively a 50 kT x 4 MIRV is a good deterrent. I always go by the likes of Bharat Karnad (very conservative on yields). Considering the careful statements of DRDO (not the boiler plate answer meant for media nitwits) and India's conservative staid admirals, boosted fission devices yielding 100-200 kT with a very low CEP for the missile should put deterrence 'beyond the realm of doubt' (Admiral Arun Prakash in 2009 admitting Dr Santhanam's claim of the Indian H-Bomb being a fizzle and saying the boosted fission device worked clear enough to prove 100-200 kT warheads are well within India's ability to make, allaying the fears about deterrence thereby).
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=yUi8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=India+boosted+fission+device+kT+100&source=bl&ots=eoFwhuJLC2&sig=ACfU3U0wNHegD-bFLhYpADdNqY00RVfUhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju36TPpabnAhUZxIsBHbEzCMYQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=India%20boosted%20fission%20device%20kT%20100&f=false
Bottomline: India can field 100 kT boosted fission devices without a problem. MIRVing is an ongoing process as part of the K-5/6 development. A single warhead mounted K-4 fielding SSBN patrolling is possible before 2026, but a MIRVed consistent deterrent will be aft. 2030. Again, the question to ponder will be, what will decide the red lines?
Point 2
Janes and Diplomat are saying the K-4 is too big to fit Arihant... Despite a draught of 15 m and the K-4 being 12 m, it seems there are some issues still pending with fitting the K-4... this might be wrong
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/india-test-fires-intermediate-range-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile/
I think draught matters more as the missile diameter is only 1.3 m and length is 12 m while the hump ensures the draught of 15 m is enough for the missile and space enough for the cold gas canister to blast it through...
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteIn long term, from S5 SSBN, Indian Navy planning to do deterrence patrol in Chagos trench or in Indian ocean west of Australia.
And with that more and more SSN start to deploy there.
In your opinion, how Australia tackle such threats? I know India and Australia ,if not allies but hold a good relations. But in military terms one handle all threats. How Australia see Indian Navy's SSNs and tackle such threats?
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteSome reorganizations at Saab Kockums Head of Saab Kockums departing
"Gunnar Wieslander, the head of Saab’s Kockums naval business area for the past four years, is leaving the Swedish defence company.
With Kockums entering “a significant production phase”, Wieslander and Micael Johansson, Saab’s president and CEO, agreed that “a new leadership is needed”, Saab said in a statement. Johansson himself is new to his current role, which he has filled since October."
/Kjell
Hi ghalibkabir [your January 28, 2020 at 8:44 PM comment]
ReplyDeleteThanks for agreement up to 2026.
I think the whole idea of building an SSBN is to carry mated warheads otherwise it is an extravagance with no deterrent value.
Reports in the reference below about likely Indian boosted fission yields indeed point to India being capable of deploying 500kg warheads of the foreign SLBM standard of 100-150 kTs.
That reference being "Indian Nuclear Strategy: Confronting the Potential Threat from both China and Pakistan" by Sanjay Badri-Maharaj at https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=yUi8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=India+boosted+fission+device+kT+100&source=bl&ots=eoFwhuJLC2&sig=ACfU3U0wNHegD-bFLhYpADdNqY00RVfUhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju36TPpabnAhUZxIsBHbEzCMYQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=India%20boosted%20fission%20device%20kT%20100&f=false
I wish there was a similar book about Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons.
On "Point 2"
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN in 2009 talks about Arihant being "about 15 m tall". This would be enough for a K-4 and needed cold launch gear. https://web.archive.org/web/20130526061306/http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2617/stories/20090828261702500.htm
Pete
Hi Arpit Kanodia
ReplyDeleteWith India having to meet the everpresent Pakistan and China nuclear threats I don't think Australia would feel threatened by India's future 13,000+ ton S5 class SSBNs - see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/11/rare-satellite-view-of-2-indian-arihant.html
This is even if the "Indian Navy planning to do deterrence patrol[s] in Chagos trench or in Indian ocean west of Australia."
As India is unlikely to build operational SSNs for 15 years your question is very hypothetical - in future.
I think India's leased Akulas (Chakra II and future Chakra III, reactors and all) are more technology reference points for India future SSN project.
Re your question "In your opinion, how Australia tackle such threats?" I'd answer that Australia's threats are from Chinese and Russian SSBNs and SSNs already.
Australian subs could destroy some in certain SE Asian narrows. But on the open "blue water" ocean Australia would largely rely on Australian and US sensor-weapons solutions consisting ASW ships, SOSUS, P-8s, Tritons, satellites, US SSNs and US nuclear deterrence.
Future Australian nuclear deterrence, if possible, would help.
Regards
Pete
4x100 kT on a K-5/6 seems a reasonable outcome to expect and doable with current tested designs... 0.4 MT yield is a good sized deterrent per missile. I think it is not so popular these days, but if it was upto me, I would add radioactive cobalt around the plutonium core to ensure maximal effect.
ReplyDeleteThe JL-3 might field 3-4x150 kT or upto 7x35kT smaller warheads...
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/jl-3.htm
have a nice weekend.
Hi /Kjell [January 29, 2020 at 5:03 PM]
ReplyDeleteThanks for your https://www.janes.com/article/93909/head-of-saab-kockums-departing link about Gunnar Wieslander, the head of Saab’s Kockums naval business area, leaving Saab.
Saab's submarine technical solutions will probably impact the RAN once Australia gets round to upgrading 5 or 6 of its Collins.
This is with the expectation that some of the mid-life upgrades for Sweden's Gotland class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine#Mid-life_upgrade_contract will be adopted for the Collins.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteLars Tossman will be the New Head of Business area Kockums
"Lars Tossman joined Saab in 1986 and has held a number of positions within the company. Today, Lars Tossman is head of business unit Radar Solutions within business area Surveillance."
If/When there will be an update of the Collins do you think it will be a major one with the subs cut in two?
/Kjell