March 19, 2023

3 New SSNs for Indian Navy. Russian Reactors: French Hulls?

India’s Firstpost March 17, 2023 reports, in part: 

"...According to media reports, the Indian Navy may receive approval to purchase only three nuclear submarines during the initial stage [instead of presumably 6 x Project-75 Alpha SSNs]. The original plan, which envisaged the procurement of six submarines in the initial lot has been scrapped by the defence ministry due to high procurement costs.

…It was decided in 2019 that only three submarines will be developed as part of Project-“77” [presumably meant to be Project-75 Alpha] …following the initial investment of Rs 100 crores [equivalent to only US$12 million ?] for research and development, for the program did not receive any more funds and the project still awaits clearance.

Meanwhile, France has offered a major nuclear submarine deal to India. As part of the deal, France will become a part of the Indian Navy’s program to develop 6 nuclear submarines and has also offered to share conventional technology from its Barracuda-class nuclear submarine program.”

[Earlier reported by Firstpost on March 16, 2023:

“New Delhi: The Indian Navy, which is undergoing a modernisation process, may get yet another boost as France has offered a major nuclear submarine deal to India.

As part of the deal, France will become a part of India’s program to develop 6 nuclear submarines and has also offered to share conventional technology fromits Barracuda-class nuclear submarine program… France’s offer to India is similar to a deal it had offered to Brazil earlier, which is also developing its first nuclear submarine with French assistance.

The French offer to India includes the overhauled design based on its Barracuda-class submarine for a new submarine class. This new submarine will feature pump-jet propulsion along with a [ presumably the Indian Compact Light-Water Reactor “CLWR-B2 "gentle running" for S5 SSBN and "more stop-start" B3 for Project-75 Alpha SSN ?” variant of the 190 MW thermal(t), 30 to 35 MW electrical(e) Russian OK-650 ] 190 MWt Pressurized water reactor which is currently being developed by state-owned nuclear company BARC in consultation with Russian state-owned companies.”]

Firstpost’s March 17, 2023 report continues:

“…Work on designing an indigenous nuclear submarine design by the Directorate of Naval Design also is going on at the Indian Navy’s Shipbuilding Centre at Visakhapatnam.

[A] report by Indian Defence Research Wing (IDRW) quoted officials as saying that there were disagreements [presumably between the Indian Navy versus BARC ? ] regarding who will fund the development of a new 190MW pressurized water reactor (PWR) by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

The water reactors will be used to power the Indian Navy’s [SSN] nuclear submarine program and variant of the same reactor was to be developed for the S5 Class of ballistic missile submarines. [SSBNs]”.

PETE COMMENT

India's close reliance on Russia in nuclear submarine matters (including INS Chakra II /Nerpa lease 2012-2022) has raised expectations that India's Project-75 Alpha will be based on Russia's Akula-class SSN. 

On March 7, 2019, India and Russia signed a US$3 billion deal for lease of another Akula-class SSN. The submarine, dubbed "Chakra III" (possibly Russian submarine Irbis or Iribis K-519) might be delivered to the Indian Navy by 2025. 

Earlier INS Chakra II lease permitted Indian submariners and designers to closely study Russian Akula-class SSNs. Chakra III will deepen India's knowledge and experience of this class. 

Russia has developed an Akula III which is reportedly larger and quieter than other Akulas. The Akula III has likely adopted some advanced features of the follow-on Yasen-class SSN. Possibly India will base its Project-75 Alphas on the Akula III standard.

Presumably India is inviting France to offer some Barracuda SSN hull information and the Barracuda's pump-jet technology to improve India's future SSN and S5 SSBNs. India may also aim to create competition rather than totally rely on Russia in terms of direct foreign technology transfer. The Russian Borei/Borey-class SSBN also has pump-jet technology.

But if Russia is assisting with the CLWR-B2 (and maybe a "B3") reactor then Russia is firmly embedded in Indian nuclear submarine construction. So embedded that any French technology transfer can be expected to be soaked up by Russian advisors (with GRU links) in India or via Indian agents working for Russia (all the way back to 1991). 

In any case India attempting to integrate a variant or development of a Russian
OK-650 reactor with a French Barracuda hull and pump-jet, would be technically very difficult and expensive. Perhaps, then, an Indian variant of the Akula III, with a 
CLWR-B3 reactor, working to a Russian-French hybrid pump-jet, is possible.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

from French anom.
These are rumours from the Indian press but W/O any info from the French side..
In any case I am not sure what it means

The design and the deployement/military uses philosophies of the Fr SSN are quite different from the Russian or US views.The Chinese are using an approach to LEU that sounds similar to the French one apprarently,without much public data

-The LEU/HEU debate has been well documented.The French system is really an extension of their civilian PWR reducing hugely the cost , using the same critical civilian safety regulation and relying on the civilian fuel cycle assets and economics.The legal need to inspect an empty reactor every 10 years (robot) allow to have very compact designs with the steam generator within the reactor(a critical interface changed every 10 years, including in HEU system,anyway ) and to develop robots, facilities (as in Civilian PWR, changed every 2/3 years) to change the fuel quickly (2/3 weeks) and to allow easy dismantling

The USN on the contrary puts a huge premium on "sealed for life core" because they have a long positive learning curve /experience, they have still a large inventory of HEU (N weapons converted, the US stopped the production of HEU) and because most important this limits the number of USN facilities needed (equipment, people ,political local sensitivities)worldwide to support the fleet as the USN cannot piggy back on the civilian (See US senate studies)

This lead to much larger boats (vertical rods that needs to deploy,heat exchanger outside,limited U235 volumetric density/loading for obvious safety reasons..,that are typically 2X the size ,the cost and the crew.Once you have large assets you try to use them beyond a traditionnal sub mission and you incorporate more and more cruise missile for instance (VLSI)

-The French deployement has for objective to have hunter subs to protect SSBN, the fleet and to intercept ennemy naval assets.This means the most silent with the best sonars and torpedoes.They oerate tactically in an electric mode with very large permanent magnet motors (4to 10 Mw range) and the associated converter/drives.This is more difficult for larger boats, driven by steam turbines. The steam drives turbogenerators while the steam turbine is used essentially for quick strategic move (deep and at 25+knots)in the Barracuda class
By the way the french reactors can remain critical using natural cooling in the silent mode as reported (critical means that the neutrons level is constant, at any, very low or very high, power..) .The French do not have the ressource incl human of having large boats,redundant cruise missile systems for land attack(the MdCN on sub via the torpedo tubes is a marginal contributor vs surface ships or airforce platforms. They can't afford Services rivalries as well..

In the case of Brazil they have developped an intermmediate solution of their own ,using LEU for costs ,at 20% U 235 because they will refuel in 20/25 years.It is the electric mode that they are buying from Naval Group to make an enlarged Scorpene (no pumpjet as far as I know)

Is the Indian Navy interested in the electric propulsion that the Russian or the US have not explored as much ?,in the pumpjet? Do they want to move to a civilian compatible solutions?Is this linked to a civilian N strategy discussed with the French at the same time ?(6 EPR reactors at Jaitapur), where India would need to have a complete control of its fuel cycle if they are serious with civilian N

Not clear at all but these are interconnected to a large extent
SSN in the 10000 T or in the 3000/4000Tranges?

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

After reading all of your postings on AUKUS and more widely, some thoughts.

We now know that AUKUS Pillar 1 will fill the capability gap created by the retirements of the Collins class subs, with Virginia class SSNs in 2030s. The AUKUS class will be the Collins eventual replacement mid to late 2040s or later. The proposed cost, at least $268b. Based on past projects, even the high-end figure of $368b is probably significantly lower than the final costs.

There is a real risk that projects currently underway will make SSNs 'visible', much as the development of air power made battleships sitting ducks. Further, the development of XLUUVs like Ghost Shark, and the RAAF's Ghost Bat (formerly Loyal Wingman) offers a glimpse into the future. The war in Ukraine highlights how low-cost, less capable autonomous vehicles in sufficient numbers can be a force multiplier. Add to the mix, the increasing application of improved AI dramatically improving capability. The next 20-30 years can be expected to produce innovative breakthrough military technologies. AUKUS Tier 2 focuses on delivering some of these capabilities.

There appears to be little discussion on how to reduce Pillar 1 costs, shorten the acquisition timetable, and give greater focus to Pillar 2? For example, if we were to save $100b on the SSNs acquisition costs, we could redirect say $50b to Pillar 2 with the rest no longer being needed, reducing DEfence's demand on the budget.

Pillar 1 focuses on acquiring highly capable SSNs and in sufficient numbers to operate with a school of XLUUVs ('loyal shark-pack'?).

Assuming that France would be willing to share with their military 'crown jewels' or their Barracuda class SSN, particularly after their Shortfin rebuff, could it provide strategic deterrence for significantly less cost and potentially sooner?

Barracuda's manning levels are also significantly lower than the Virginia or AUKUS (based on Astute) subs, overcoming the manpower issues raised by AUKUS.

It is accepted that the Barracuda class is less capable than the Virginia class or Astute class (and therefore its planned, yet to be even designed replacement, AUKUS class). Does this really matter, if has sufficient capability to meet the strategic objective of deterrence?

We are paying a high price to get a premium product, later than we would like, with a promise that it will deliver the needed capability. Given the time scales involved, the uncertain political whims of future US and UK governments, and the growing geopolitical threats, should we now re-look at the Barracuda option? It could be available in the 2030s, if not earlier, with support from the French Government.

Should our Pillar 1 focus NOW be on the acquisition of a sufficiently capable SSN and in greater numbers, while at the same time increasing our investment in the development of a 'loyal shark-pack'?

Food for thought?

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous @Mar 20, 2023, 2:25:00 PM

Thanks for your huge, learned, comment. I'll turn it into an article tomorrow.

I agree with many of your points including the potential of the RAN's and Aus defence science DSTG's "Ghost Shark" Anduril XLUUV Project https://navalinstitute.com.au/ghost-shark-unmanned-and-under-water/ and https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2022-12-14/ghost-shark-stealthy-game-changer

which is connected to the AUKUS "additional undersea capabilities" program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Computer_and_cybertechnology

I'm hoping Ghost Shark heads off the need for SSNs.

Regards Pete

Pete said...

Hi French Anonymous @Mar 20, 2023, 5:16:00 AM

Thanks also for your long comment on the implications of what French, Chinese, US, Brazilian, Indian and Russian reactors mean for their nuclear propelled subs and civil-military nuclear industry balancing.

I'm guessing that China, through "good" HumInt or SigInt gathering gained information of France's LEU sub reactor technology - perhaps in the same way China gained information on
Sweden's Stirling AIP technology?

Or perhaps China now spends enough money and human effort on defence science to develop its own key defence technologies from first principles?

I'll turn your comments into an article by Friday March 24.

Regards Pete