May 1, 2012

Indian Submarines Chakra & the ATVs Make Progress

As at Aug 27, 2008


2 Russian Akula IIs - similar (perhaps) to the final form of INS Chakra


Likely Plan of India's Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) which may be launched next year. This ".jpg" image originated here.
-
-
On August 21, 2008, a confusing article from India Today stated (paragraphs reorganised to attempt to provide clarity):
-
INS Chakra - Modified Akula II
-
"India's strategic establishment has begun the countdown to two important milestones. In late June, a modified Akula-II class nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Chakra, began harbour acceptance trials at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur shipyard [inland about 1,000 kms northeast of Vladivostok] in the Russian far east.
-
The Chakra is the Russian submarine, formerly [commissioned Nerpa in December 2000], which in the next few months will to sail into the Pacific Ocean off Vladivostok for full-fledged sea trials with a Russian crew.
-
If the trials are successfully concluded, say officials, the Chakra will be commissioned at Vladivostok with an Indian crew who will sail it to India by August 15, 2009.
-
Due to its design commonality with ATV, the Chakra is being leased primarily to train crews to man ATVs. With its cruise missiles and torpedoes, it will also be used for sea-denial missions [maybe] in the Indian Ocean.
-
The under construction 12,000-tonne Chakra was to be completed and leased to India for 10 years under a $650-million deal signed in 2004. It was to be inducted into the navy on August 15 this year, but was delayed by a year, following technical snags."Project India", as the classified lease programme is called, seems to be back on track after being seemingly caught in last year's freeze in Indo-Russian defence ties over escalating costs of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya's [ex-Gorshkov] refit.
-
Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) - Modified Akula I
-
On January 26, 2009, the sluice gates of an enclosed dry-dock in Visakhapatnam [naval base on India's east coast] are to be opened and the world will take its first look at India's first nuclear-powered submarine, the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), as it enters the waters. [complete fitout, testing, crew training may take 4 or 5 years before the first ATV is operational].
-
...The aim is to field three [ATV] submarines equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles-the so-called third leg of the nuclear triad comprising air, land and sea-launched weapons-on "deterrent patrols" (to deter a potential adversary from launching a nuclear first strike) by 2015.
-
India's ATV is based on the Russian Akula I class [first launched 1986] submarine, but is powered by a single indigenously-built nuclear reactor and equipped with 12 K-15 ballistic missiles or 16 of the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.
-Background
-
naval-technology.com provides the most comprehensive description of the Akula I's and II's that I've seen:
-
Data for Akula II:
-
Crew 73
Surfaced Displacement 8,140t
Displacement, Submerged 12,770t
Overall Height 11.3m
Hull Cross Section 13.6m x 9.68m
Diving Depth 600m
Run Speed Surfaced 10kt

Speed Submerged 35kt
-
Full Specifications
-
The Russian Navy has 14 Bars Class project 971 submarines known in the West as the Akula Class nuclear-powered missile attack submarines (SSN). A unknown number of Russian Akula class submarines are deployed in the Pacific and (perhaps) Indian Ocean region.
-
The submarines were built by the Amur Shipbuilding Plant Joint Stock Company at Komsomolsk-on-Amur [far eastern Siberia] and at the Severodvinsk shipbuilding yard [near Archangel in nothwestern Russia].

-
Seven Akula I submarines were commissioned between 1986 and 1992, and three Improved Akula between 1992 and 1995.
-
Three Akula II submarines, with hull length extended by 4m and advanced machinery-quietening technology, have been built.

-
[Hence main differences between Akula Is and IIs may be the hull extension and some new equipment.]
-
The first Akula II named Viper, was commissioned in 1995, the second, Nerpa, in December 2000 and the third, Gepard, in August 2001. The Akula II are 110m long and displace up to 12,770t.

-
DESIGN

-
The submarine has a double-hulled configuration with a distinctive high aft fin. The hull has seven compartments and the stand-off distance between the outer and inner hulls is considerable, reducing the possible inner hull damage [due to pressure surges and kinetic punctures?]. The very low acoustic signature has been achieved by incremental design improvements to minimise noise generation and transmission – for example, the installation of active noise cancellation techniques [and the double hull].

-
The retractable masts viewed from bow to stern are the periscopes, radar antennae, radio and satellite communications and navigation masts.

-
MISSILES
-

The Indian fitout is likely to be 16 Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles first then eventually (say 2015?) replaced or augmented by 12 K-15 ballistic missiles.
The dimensions of the BrahMos missile (8.3 m x 0.6 m) suggest it could[?] be cold launched by torpedo tubes. This would allow eventual simultanous installation of K-15 ballistic missiles and avoid the need to convert vertical launch tubes from BrahMos use to K-15 use.
India test fired a K-15 from a pontoon on February 26, 2008, two-stage, solid fuel, range 700 kms, length 11 metres, 0.7m wide [?]
-
Work on the K-15 started around a decade ago under a highly classified programme earlier called
Sagarika (Oceanic). Development ran parallel to the Indian navy's 25 year programme to build the ATV.
A news report estimated the future K-15 "payload" as 500kg. - Comment received: with a 500kg warhead, the range of the Sagarika will be 1800 km. India finds it convenient to understate the range of its missiles though. Having weaponry that can reach Europe causes diplomatic friction.
-
Regarding yield, the 250 kg warhead (in a 500kg RV for a K-15 ) may be 200-300kT - this is based on better known calculations for the Agni series warheads. The warheads developed for the Prithvi are smaller (20kT) and lighter (<200kg>20kT. For larger yield (200-300kT) they may use thermonuclear designs. It doesn't appear that India has large fission or
Sloika/Joe 4 type designs. These tend to be heavy and difficult to deliver.
-
TORPEDOES
-
The submarine has eight torpedo launch tubes, four 650mm and four 533mm tubes. The Improved Akula and Akula II have ten, with six 533mm tubes. The four 650mm tubes can be fitted with liners to provide additional 533mm weapon launch capacity. The torpedo tubes can be used to launch mines instead of torpedoes. The Akula can launch a range of anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel torpedoes.
-
SENSORS
-

The Akula's surface search radar is the Snoop Pair or the Snoop Half. The surface search radar antennae are installed on the same mast as the Rim Hat radar intercept receiver.
-
The submarine is fitted with the MGK 540 sonar system which provides automatic target detection in broad and narrow-band modes by active sonar. It gives the range, relative bearing and range rate.

-
The sonar system can also be used in a passive, listening mode for detection of hostile sonars. The sonar signal processor can detect and automatically classify targets as well as reject spurious acoustic noise sources and compensate for variable acoustic conditions.
-

PROPULSION
-

[Relevant to Chakra ] The main machinery consists of a VM-5 pressure water reactor rated at 190MW with a GT3A turbine developing 35MW. Two auxiliary diesels rated at 750hp provide emergency power. The propulsion system drives a seven-bladed fixed-pitch propeller.
[The single reactor for the ATV was reported in 2004 to be only 100MWt. Unless it has been uprated (or 2 reactors are now to be used) the ATV may be much smaller than an Akula or much slower.]
-
The propulsion system provides a maximum submerged speed of 33kt and a surface speed of 10kt. A reserve propeller system, powered by two motors rated at 370kW, provides a speed of 3kt to 4kt. The submarine is rated for a diving depth to 600m.
-
Comments
-
The January 2009 viewing of an ATV hull may be strongly influenced by the need for good public relations - showing where the Rs Billions spent on a delayed program have gone. Until the ATV hull can be viewed in its entirety press releases about the ATV cannot be fully accepted. Will it basically be an Akula or a heavily modified boat - perhaps smaller?
-
Complete fitout, testing and crew training may take 4 or 5 years before the first ATV is fully operational and ready to overawe Pakistan or counter China's SSBNs.
-
With the eventual introduction of viable Indian nuclear powered small SSBNs (on top of current Russian and Chinese SSN's and SSBN's) Australia will need to deeply consider whether a conventionally powered Collins class replacement will cut it in a nuclear submarine region.
-
We are not labelling Russia, China or India as friends or enemies. Military planning and acquisitions rely more on comparitive capabilities and needs.
-
If we calculate that America will be by our side for only 25 years then we should go nuclear (propulsion and weapons). If the Australia-US alliance estimate is optimistic - up to 40 years we don't need to think about nuclear for 20 years - maybe, hopefully.
-

April 27, 2012

Agni V's first test - in April 2012



Rather chilling but informative youtube of the Agni V including its launch characteristics.


The inner circle (above) represents Agni II's range, middle Agni III's extended range and outer (probably) Agni V's average range.
-

see report of Agni V's second test - of September 15, 2013 - at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/a-second-agni-5-test-any-mirv.html

The first test of Agni V on April 19,  2012 from Wheeler Island, Orissa, India, is to a degree domestically aimed at justifying the high expense of missile development to the broader Indian Government (which has many competing interests for the money spent) and the public. The launch is a genuine source of pride for many in India and concern in Pakistan and China. Information on the Agni V ICBM (defined as 5,500+km range) test was highly detailed. Almost all parametres except multiple independently targetted reentry vehicle (MIRV) separation may have been tested.

The Agni V is arguably an Agni III with a third stage. The Agni V range may be 5,000 km with a 1,500 kg (3 RVs MIRVed) payload and (reportedly) 8,000 km with a 500 kg (one RV) payload. An Agni V could boost a 500 kg thermonuclear warhead to most of Western Europe, all of China and Japan and central Australia (just over Pine Gap, next to Alice Springs).

Agni V is specifically designed to have an average (probably 1,000 kg payload) range to strike all of China. While Agni V is vulnerable to satellite tracking its high mobility (on TELs and rail-carriages) gives it a second and first strike capability.

One of several reasons for developing the Agni V is as a response to China's similar weight, highly land mobile DF-21. While the DF-21 has an estimated range of only 3,000 km, when placed near the China-India border a DF-21 could hit all targets in India. In contrast an Agni V on the Indian side of the same border needs to boost warheads the length of China (5,000 km) to hit Beijing and Shanghai.

India's planned SLBMs in indigenous SSBNs will eventually provide the most survivable second and first strike option. Notably the US, France and UK have steadily shifted the majority of their active nuclear warheads to SSBNs over the last 30 years.

India's SLBMs from the defendable waters of the Indian Ocean will need a range of at least 6,500 km to hit any target in China. India's proposed plan of fitting 3 - 5,000 km range navalised Agni III SLBMs to its future SSBNs would require these SSBNs to transit the dangerous chokepoints in the Indonesian Archipelago to get within range. Chinese SSNs may guard these chokepoints. These high SLBM strategic and technical requirements in part explain why India at present is emphasising the land mobile Agni V component of its evolving nuclear triad.

Shorter range Prithvi  and Agni I and II missiles encompass Pakistan but Agni III+ are needed to reach much of China and Agni V all of China. The proposed future Surya ICBM class (Agni is just marginally and ICBM) will be able to hit any targets on the planet particularly other nuclear powers.

On MIRV? - See this page on Defence Forum of India . On this page 19-04-12 08:56 PM LethalForce has reproduced my Agni V post as it stood on 19 April before I revised it. At 19-04-12 09:07 PM LethalForce asked "Australian article says it is a 3 warhead MIRV? anyone have conformation of this? " . My point is I anticipated MIRV was an outstanding issue because at that time Indian authorities had not mentioned it in connection with this Agni V test. MIRV as it applied to Indian missiles first appeared on me blog in January 2008 then MIRV on navalised Agni III SL February 2011. Several hours later DRDO chief V K Saraswat appeared to respond to the MIRV issue ""We go from here to many other missiles which will have capability for MIRV..., for anti-satellite system, ..."

On 22 April 2012 "Anonymous provided additional information "Avinash Chander, DRDO’s chief controller of missiles, explained such a missile would be “all-composite”. The Agni-5 has three stages, with the second and third stage built of composite materials. The next missile will have a composite first stage as well, making it lighter and, therefore, able to carry a heavier payload than the 1.5-tonne payload of the current Agni-5. According to DRDO sources, an MIRV payload would be significantly heavier since it would consist of several nuclear warheads, each weighing about 400 kg. A five-warhead MIRV, therefore, would weigh two tonnes."

About five additional and successful Agni V tests will be required before Agni V can be deployed (perhaps in 2016) as India's long range deterrent missile.
-
See the extended Comments Section below which contributes much on the physical and political issues of the Agni V test and about ballistic missiles in general.
-


Pete

April 24, 2012

Former US nuke submarine officer: Australia's Future Submarine acquisition



Virginia Class SSN, ugly as sin but highly efficient - the best acquisition possibility for Australia.
-
On 20 April 2012 (in response to my post Australian Nuclear Submarine Option may be realizable. of 19 April 2012) a former US nuke submarine officer provided a very interesting comment on Australia's Future Submarine acquisition choices. Specifically he commented on the many drawbacks of diesel-electric propulsion, especially for Australia's geo-strategic situation and the superiority of nuclear propulsion.

The information in his advice is all Open Source. I've seen it elsewhere on the internet in fragments. But I've never seen such consolidated comments with such a good feel for the subject. Below are his comments:

Former US nuke submarine officer said:

"
I think it's very desirable that Australia invest in nuclear submarines - if not US, then French or British.

Diesel boats are quiet when running on their batteries or on their AIP systems (air-independent propulsion such as fuel cells). Unfortunately, such subs can only creep at very low speeds -- just a few knots. Traveling from Perth to Darwin might take 2+ weeks using AIP and/or a battery (except the battery doesn't have anywhere near that range).

Diesel subs can stay submerged and run on their diesels using a snorkel, but there are still problems. First, diesel engines are extremely noisy and easy to detect, acoustically. Second, snorkeling exposes a mast to radar, generates smoke, and produces a very visible wake. Third, snorkeling limits the boat's speed to under 10 knots to avoid snorkel mast problems.

Diesel boats are great for countries like Singapore, Sweden, Germany, and Israel that use them close to their own waters to passively "lurk". They're lousy for sending distances of more than a few hundred km.

If it was just about any other country, I'd say buy diesels, but Australia has such long distances to contend with, even in its own coastal waters.

Tellingly, when new diesel boats are sent from the shipyard to faraway customers, they're sometimes shipped in floating drydocks -- it's faster and easier than sending them under their own power.

Much has been made of Australia's lack of a civilian nuclear power industry -- the US didn't have one either when it developed nuclear submarines.

Australia can get its supplier to help it build the domestic infrastructure to maintain these boats.

If the US will sell Australia its Virginia class boats, it's a very good financial risk. That program is very economically stable (unlike so many other defense programs like the F-35). They've been making these boats for a while. You can probably get them under $2 billion each. The maintenance and life cycle costs will also be very predictable.

You've had a hard time retaining your submariners but that's a very fixable problem that the US has dealt with for years.

Finally, if you buy nukes, you probably won't need 12 nukes to get the same coverage as 12 diesels. The diesels would waste much of careers time at sea just creeping to and from their destinations. Nukes would have much more useful time on station.

-
-

April 20, 2012

Brazil's Nuclear Submarine Program

Brazil to build four conventional and one nuclear Scorpene (click to enlarge)

Professor Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written the following article Brazil's Nuclear Submarine Program in his blog the (ex) washington realist:

Brazil is going to try and develop an indigenous capability to build and deploy nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Ambassador Paul Taylor (of the US Naval War College) asks in the current issue of [US Naval Institute] Proceedings, "Why does Brazil need nuclear submarines?" A related question is how does this help or hinder U.S. interests?

[Brazilian] President Lula sees the ability to master this complicated military technology as an important national interest, recently noting that "Brazil will be one of the select group of nations that possess this indispensable capability for effective deterrence." The Brazilian Navy sees having nuclear submarines as part of a toolbox of being able to play a greater role in regional and global efforts to patrol the seas and keep lines of communication open.

Taylor quotes Rear Admiral Antonio Ruy de Almeida Silva, who argues that Brazil has to take much more responsibility for protecting its maritime patrimony:

"The Navy has actually strongly defended a larger participation in the effort to protect the maritime area under national jurisdiction, suggestively named Amazania Azul (the Blue Amazon). Keeping control of this maritime area is a big challenge that grows as sea-related activities, connected to the exploitation of living and non-living resources, increase as happens with oil exploration in the Brazilian continental shelf."

And as Brazil increases its cooperation with South Africa and India for patrolling and securing the South Atlantic and South Indian Oceans, having such capabilities increases the clout of this regional organization.

What's the U.S. interest? Do we want more states to have advanced capabilities that previously were largely an American preserve? Would a nuclear submarine capability make Brazil more assertive against U.S. interests? Or can burdens be shared or passed along to other states? In other words, is this a positive step which shows that an emerging great power like Brazil is preparing to shoulder greater responsibilities for the defense of "international public goods" like the sea-lanes?


Comments
-
Discussion of France's Scorpene construction offer, Brazilian and Argentinian nuclear developments, and the future Australian submarine were all contained in a Australia in the Indian Ocean post Will Australia Go the Nuclear Powered Submarine Route? of March 3, 2008.

Development of nuclear propulsion is a huge undertaking - more complex, I think, than producing an enriched uranium bomb. A naval reactor normally needs uranium enriched to bomb grade so the enrichment requirements are similar.

If Brazil builds up the advanced level of nuclear expertise to build naval reactors and stockpiles the necessary bomb grade uranium then nuclear weapons for Brazil are a tempting next step, particularly for warheads on land attack missiles deployed by nuclear propelled submarines.

Argentina, which has a moderately advanced nuclear sector (less so than Brazil) would feel
nervous having a nuclear propelled or armed neighbour and would wish to follow Brazil's lead.

Under subheading "The Submarine Project" of his article Ambassador Taylor advises:

"Visiting Brazil in December 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed a "strategic partnership" agreement providing for transfer of technology to Brazil for construction there of four diesel-powered Scorpene attack submarines as well as joint development of the hull for a nuclear submarine. An announcement by the Brazilian Ministry of Defense emphasized that Brazil would develop all of the nuclear part."

The US ordinarily resents foreign powers meddling in Latin American arms industries especially on a large scale and nuclear level. But the US may have made an exception with France (newly cooperative concerning NATO) and a partial counterbalance to Russian influence (mainly Venezuela) in Latin America.

The stipulation that France not help with the Brazilian reactor should taken with a pinch of salt. Development of hull for a nuclear sub involves many technical pointers as to the dimensions and other characteristcs of a reactor. The French technicians and engineers assisting spend most of their careers building nuclear submarines and reactors for France. A huge amount of verbal advice can be given - avoiding some of the need for written technical instructions - that would so embarrass the Americans.

From the American point of view its better that France a friend help proliferate nuclear submarines (as France helped Israel build the Bomb) than have the Russians do it instead.

A Brazilian nuclear submarine (extra smooth, of course ;) also provides a political opening (excuse) for Australia to develop its own - with French or even US help. Perhaps Australia might build 6 nuclear subs after the first six large conventional subs built in 2020-30.

Professor Gvosdev implies that Brazilian nuclear subs may operate in the Indian Ocean in time.

Wouldn't proliferation of nuclear subs to middle ranking powers, like Brazil and Australia, complicate the job of the Indian Navy?
-
Pete

April 19, 2012

Australian Nuclear Submarine Option may be realizable.


The Virginia Class Submarine - buy it if we can - best SSN in the world (along with the Akula II). Will the US trust Australia with Virginia technology? Click image to expand so its readable.
-
For an excellent description of the Roles and Requirements for Autralia's Future Submarine see Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, April 6, 2011 http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/134/ROLES-AND-REQUIREMENTS-FOR-AUSTRALIA-S-FUTURE-SUBMARINE .


The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has written an update on the Future Submarine SEA 1000 program. This ASPI Report is 'Mind the gap: getting serious about submarines' Strategic Insights 57 -  Thursday, 19 April 2012 http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=335&pubtype=-1 (see 'Download PDF' which is free).

On page 15 the option of buying nuclear has received an increasingly serious airing, though significant problems remain - particularly US willingness to transfer extremely sensitive nuclear technology. The ASPI update includes (p.15) a nuclear issue I raised in 2009 - that is any US export of a submarine reactor would probably include 85% HEU (low end weapons grade) fuel - a complex proliferation issue.

Australia's future submarine program is desperately late as ever but the longer the wait the higher the chance that US Virginia Class nuclear submarines might be selected. France, should also be watching this process as Brazil might not be the only nuclear submarine customer.

I think Australia should put its long term submarine acquisition planning on hold until the US is serious in making the nuclear submarine option possible.
-
Pete

April 17, 2012

South Korean Submarine Developments

A very sketchy artist's impression. Might the KSS-III to be launched from 2020 look like this?
--------------
Click to expand. Is the proposed DSX-3000 the same as the KSS-III?
--------------------------

Please connect with Submarine Matters latest South Korea update South Korean Submarines, 3,000 Ton KSS-III, Nuclear Potential of April 15, 2015.

From The Korea Times, May 10, 2009 comes:

"The Ministry of National Defense plans to deploy 3,000-ton [surfaced, 3,500 ton submerged] attack submarines after 2020, a two-year delay from the original Defense Reform 2020 initiative, a report said Sunday.

...The development of an [indigenous] 3,000 ton KSS-III submarine is a key part of the Navy's modernization programs. The KSS-III sub is to be fitted with domestically built submarine combat systems aimed at automating target detection, tracking, threat assessment and weapon control, according to Navy officials.

[Is the proposed DSX-3000 the same as the KSS-III?]

The 1-trillion-won heavy attack submarine will also be armed with indigenous ship-to-ground cruise missiles and be capable of underwater operations for up to 50 days with an advanced Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system, they said. The AIP system has improved the submarine's underwater performance and gives it stealth capability." full article
-
A Korean nuclear propelled submarine option?:
On South Korea's past consideration of a 4,000 ton nuclear propelled submarine (various names including "KSSX-N") option see this globalsecurity.com report. 
-

South Korea's top in-service submarine at the moment is the 1,800 ton Son Won-Il (KSS-II) class. It is a HDW U-214 sub built under licence by Hyundai. Two are in service with four more to be built.
The photo is from "Manoeuvre' in Maritime Asia" a very interesting website on South Korean naval matters that I've just come upon.
-
Drawn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III - The first KSS-III ship will be ready for service by 2022. The previous plan was to have an operational unit ready by 2017. Due to the relatively heavy displacement of the ship (3000~3500 tons) and the fact that it will be built with local Korean technologies (sensitive technologies might be blocked from export) this new class of ship will have the Vertical Launch System, the first submarine in the Republic of Korea Navy to have this kind of capability. It will also have many other improvements compared to its predecessors.

- Pete