September 5, 2014

Supersonic air travel - Advanced Research

Supersonic passanger travel (or supersonic transport (SST) remains an economic and technical challenge - with little progress since  the ConcordeThe Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde was one of only two supersonic passenger aircraft to enter commercial service. The other was the Tupolev Tu-144 which was probably designed from data gleaned by Russian espionage, hence the Tu-144 was nicknamed “Concordski”.

Because the Concorde was produced under a UK-French treaty, the project, rapidly seen as uneconomic, couldn’t be stopped as neither country wanted to lose face by pulling out. Concorde was first test flown in 1969, entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.

In the 1960s several US aerospace companies (particularly Boeing) also spent large amounts of money on SST designs. However less government meddling and no treaty concerns permitted US companies to drop these projects for economic and environmental reasons.

The only operators of Concorde turned out to be British Airways and Air France, who received them free of charge from their respective governments - such were the projected economic losses. The major routes were London-New York and Paris-New York due to world-wide noise concerns. As only 20 Concordes were built the development costs were never refunded from sales. Concorde was retired in 2003 due to a general downturn in the aviation industry, safety and noise worries.

Some engineers are optimistic that the major environmental concern - sonic booms - can be minimised but booms remain a huge technical and regulatory obstacle. This hasn't stopped hopeful research as detailed below.

 Thanks The Daily Mail (Australia ninemsn) for the article below, of June 24, 2014. As my blog is totally non-profit, non-revenue freeview, the article has been reproduced Creative Commons. Article is at  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2667027/Supersonic-air-travel-gets-set-comeback-Nasa-tests-pave-way-generation-high-speed-planes.html:

"Supersonic air travel gets set for a comeback: Nasa tests pave the way for the next generation of high-speed planes


  • Firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have unveiled aircraft concepts
  • Nasa engineers are working to define a new standard for low sonic booms
  • They're presenting their research at the Aviation 2014 conference in Atlanta
  • The hope is that quieter planes will mean the ban on supersonic flight by civilian aircraft over land is lifted
  • Features including a needle-like nose, sleek fuselage and a delta wing have been found to result in lower sonic booms
  • Engineers claim the research has progressed to the point where the design of a practical low-boom supersonic jet is within reach


In the 1960s, it seemed like the future of air travel was supersonic, but in 2003 Concorde made its final flight. Now, hopes for super speedy journeys by air have been rekindled as a number of companies have unveiled concepts for supersonic jets of the future. 

The concepts coincide with Nasa tests that are hoping to find a way to create an aircraft that is quieter than Concorde. It is hoped new supersonic aeroplanes designed to carry civilian passengers could be ready within the next 15 years.

Is the future supersonic? Hopes for super speedy journeys by air have been rekindled as a number of companies, including Boeing (pictured) have unveiled concepts for supersonic jets of the future, and Nasa has begun tests to work out a way of creating an aircraft that is not as noisy as Concorde was
Is the future supersonic? Hopes for super speedy journeys by air have been rekindled as a number of companies, including Boeing (pictured) have unveiled concepts for supersonic jets of the future, and Nasa has begun tests to work out a way of creating an aircraft that is not as noisy as Concorde was.

QUIETENING THE SONIC BOOM

In a conventional supersonic aircraft, shockwaves from the nose, cockpit, inlets, wings and other features come together as they move through the atmosphere into strong shocks emanating from the nose and tail.
These are known as bow and tail shocks, respectively.
As these shockwaves pass over someone on the ground, air pressure rises sharply, declines, then rises rapidly again - it’s this that produces the classic ‘double-bang’ sonic boom.
Reshaping the aircraft to produce a longer, more slender shape that slips through the air is the best way to generate shockwaves of lower, more equal strength that attenuate as they pass through the atmosphere and do not form into such strong bow and tail shocks. 
Stretching the nose to break the bow shock into a series of weaker shockwaves is particularly effective. 
This lowers and spreads that initial pressure peak and softens the first bang of the sonic boom.

Aeronautics engineers at Nasa are working to define a new standard for low sonic booms and are presenting their work at Aviation 2014, the annual event of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, in Atlanta.
They have been busy gathering data in order to create new, quieter planes that could help overturn the current ban on supersonic flight over land.
‘Lessening sonic booms - shock waves caused by an aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound - is the most significant hurdle to reintroducing commercial supersonic flight,’ said Peter Coen, head of the High Speed Project in Nasa’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Washington. 
‘Other barriers include high altitude emissions, fuel efficiency and community noise around airports.’

Aeronautics engineers at Nasa are working to define a new standard for low sonic booms. They have flown F/A-18 mission support aircraft (pictured) to create low-intensity sonic booms in a bid to gauge the public's tolerance to noise at the agency's Armstrong Flight Research Centre in Edwards, California
Aeronautics engineers at Nasa are working to define a new standard for low sonic booms. They have flown F/A-18 mission support aircraft (pictured) to create low-intensity sonic booms in a bid to gauge the public's tolerance to noise at the agency's Armstrong Flight Research Centre in Edwards, California.

In a supersonic aircraft, shockwaves from the nose, cockpit, inlets, wings and other features coalesce as they move through the atmosphere. As these shockwaves pass over someone on the ground, air pressure rises sharply, declines, then rises rapidly again. This produces the 'double-bang' sonic boom

In a supersonic aircraft, shockwaves from the nose, cockpit, inlets, wings and other features coalesce as they move through the atmosphere. As these shockwaves pass over someone on the ground, air pressure rises sharply, declines, then rises rapidly again. This produces the 'double-bang' sonic boom.

Engineers are investigating how to design a low-boom aircraft, as well as measuring the loudness and the annoyance of the boom, by asking people to listen to the sounds in a specially designed noise test chamber.
The space agency recently flew small planes at supersonic speeds at Nasa’s Armstrong Flight Research Centre in Edwards, California, to gauge the public’s response to the noise.
Scientists are also working on how to design aircraft that reduce the noise of the sonic boom.
Mike Park, a fluid mechanics engineer at Langley, said: ‘We are working to understand the worldwide state of the art in predicting sonic booms from an aircraft point of view.
‘We found for simple configurations we can analyse and predict sonic booms extremely well. For complex configurations we still have some work to do.’
Designs including a needle-like nose, sleek fuselage, and a delta wing have been tested in wind tunnels and seem to result in lower booms, according to the experts.

It's more than a decade since Concorde (pictured) was retired from service. No company will build a supersonic passenger plane unless it is allowed to fly supersonically over land - something that was off-limits for Concorde
It's more than a decade since Concorde (pictured) was retired from service. No company will build a supersonic passenger plane unless it is allowed to fly supersonically over land - something that was off-limits for Concorde.

'Lessening sonic booms - shock waves caused by an aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound - is the most significant hurdle to reintroducing commercial supersonic flight,' said Nasa's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. Pictured is Lockheed Martin's design for a supersonic aircraft
'Lessening sonic booms - shock waves caused by an aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound - is the most significant hurdle to reintroducing commercial supersonic flight,' said Nasa's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. Pictured is Lockheed Martin's design for a supersonic aircraft.

Sonic boom noise is measured in perceived decibel level (PLdB).
Concorde’s boom was a window-rattling 105 PLdB. Researchers believe 75 PLdB would be an acceptable level for unrestricted supersonic flight over land, but Nasa is aiming more ambitiously for 70 PLdB or lower.
This looks achievable for a small supersonic business jet, because boom is proportional to aircraft weight, but is a much greater challenge for a heavier airliner.
In wind-tunnel tests, designs from both Boeing and Lockheed Martin - funded by Nasa - which would carry between 30 and 80 passengers, achieved boom levels as low as 79 PLdB.
At this level, the sonic boom would be more of a thump than a loud bang. Nasa is setting the bar even higher - it thinks 70 PLdB is achievable with more refinement. Studies are still taking place to try to reduce the volume level even further.
Nasa and industry engineers claim supersonic research has progressed to the point where the design of a practical low-boom supersonic jet is within reach.

Nasa and industry engineers say they believe supersonic research has progressed to the point where the design of a practical low-boom supersonic jet is within reach. Here Lockheed Martin's design, with a long needle-like nose and delta wing intended to cut the noise of a sonic boom, is tested in a wind tunnel
Nasa and industry engineers say they believe supersonic research has progressed to the point where the design of a practical low-boom supersonic jet is within reach. Here Lockheed Martin's design, with a long needle-like nose and delta wing intended to cut the noise of a sonic boom, is tested in a wind tunnel.

The space agency is not the only firm working on building the supersonic jet of the future. 
Companies such as Aerion and Spike Aerospace are looking to take business jets supersonic. 
Boston-based Spike Aerospace has designed a supersonic jet called the Spike S-512 that it claims could carry 12 to 18 passengers at 1,100mph (1,700 km/h), or Mach 1.6.
It claims the craft could cut flight times in half so passengers could fly from New York to London in just three hours, of from LA to Tokyo in six hours.
Lockheed Martin unveiled its vision for a supersonic future at the aviation event, with a concept featuring two engines under a sleek aircraft’s wings and one on top of the fuselage.
Once Virgin Galactic is fully operational, Richard Branson has also set his sights on supersonic travel and has plans to create supersonic planes aircraft enough to travel from New York to Tokyo in less than an hour, CNBC reported.
‘After we've done the space program, we will be producing supersonic planes, which will go far, far, faster than Concorde…You could be traveling at 19,000 miles per hour orbitally,’ he said.

COULD THE FUTURE OF AIR TRAVEL BE HYPERSONIC?

Supersonic could be superseded by something even faster.
Mach 2.5 is about the speed limit for gas-turbine engines. Any faster and the temperature and pressure of air entering the engine is too high for the turbo machinery inside. To fly at hypersonic speed - Mach 5 and above - requires a different type of engine. 
A supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet, has no moving parts. Instead of the rotating compressor and turbine in a jet engine, air is compressed and expanded by complex systems of shockwaves under the front of the aircraft, inside the inlet and under the fuselage at the rear.
Scramjets have been under development for decades, but a breakthrough came in May 2013, when the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s Boeing X-51A WaveRider flew for 240 seconds over the Pacific on scramjet power, reaching Mach 5.1 and running until its fuel was exhausted.
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works - builder of the Mach 3.5 SR-71 Blackbird spyplane - has unveiled plans to develop a successor, dubbed the SR-72, pictured
The next step is to build a high-speed cruise missile, able to strike distant targets in minutes, not hours. Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works - builder of the Mach 3.5 SR-71 Blackbird spyplane - has unveiled plans to develop a successor, dubbed the SR-72 (pictured above).
Designed for reconnaissance and strike missions, the SR-72 would combine turbojet and ramjet/scramjet engines to enable the aircraft to take off from a runway, accelerate to a Mach 6 cruise, and then return to a conventional runway landing.
If it can secure funding from the U.S. Defense Department, Lockheed Martin believes a prototype could be flying as soon as 2023 and the SR-72 could enter service by 2030, potentially paving the way for commercial applications of scramjet technology."
Pete

September 4, 2014

Submarine export trends - Japan's Soryu

Like a Western political rally this Soryu launch is colorful. Highly likely they will remove the bunting before sailing :)
---

An almost complete (it misses Israel's Dolphin sub) set of HDW designed and mostly built submarines - from the 206 to the future South Korean DSX-3000 (Courtesy Turkish Navy Shipbucket).
---

n excellent and  succinct article on Japan's new arms export approach, epitomised by the Soryu submarine. He also makes some valid observations on trends and realities in the international submarine market. See http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/japan-enters-global-submarine-market-with-soryu-offering/

"Japan Enters Global Submarine Market With Soryu Offering

110 Shares
As Clint Richards noted earlier, it now appears likely that Japan will sell advanced Soryu-class submarines to Australia. In addition to strengthening the relationship between Australia and Japan, and making Australia’s submarine force considerably more lethal, this represents a major move by Japan into the global submarine market.
Germany, France, and Russia have long dominated the existing market for diesel-electric submarines. The German Type 209 submarine serves in over a dozen navies, with more than 60 boats currently in service.  While the design stems from the 1960s, the newest boats entered service in the last decade. Germany’s successor, the Type 214, is scheduled for export to Greece and South Korea, but has suffered some setbacks.  France has exported the Scorpene-class to Malaysia, Brazil, and India, and Russia continues to export its Kilo-class subs and Improved Kilos to a handful of countries, at least until Russian industry can work through the problems with the Lada-class.
The Japanese Soryus are extremely competitive with these boats. At 4,200 tons submerged, the Soryu-class is considerably larger than either the Type 214, Scorpene, or Improved Kilo, and can carry a much heavier weapons load. This size also makes them quieter and longer-ranged than the other boats on the market. At current price expectations of around $500 million, the Soryus are not wildly more expensive than the other boats.
The United States, of course, hasn’t had a piece of this market in decades, as no U.S. yards build diesel-electric subs. China has yet to begin exporting subs, although the increasing sophistication of Chinese designs may make this possible in the near future.
Shifting Japan’s defense industry to export will undoubtedly produce some teething troubles. One caveat is longevity. The JMSDF has historically only expected its subs to operate for about 20 years.  Many export customers will expect a longer life from their boats, and Japanese industry will have to adjust accordingly with respect to equipment, repair, and spare part requirements.  Unlike the Germans, French, and Russians, the Japanese have little experience with managing the long-term maintenance requirements of sophisticated weapon systems in foreign service. But given the strong reputation of Japanese industry, this shouldn’t be a big problem.
There’s no doubt that Germany, Russia, and France should worry about the position they currently hold in the global submarine market. Many of the Latin American navies have Type 209 boats that will require replacement sooner rather than later. The Soryu could also give Vietnam an alternative to the Improved Kilos Hanoi is buying from Russia. It doesn’t hurt that some of these large, long-ranged boats may go to countries that have problems with China. This solidifies Japan’s security relationship with these countries, while also improving the economic prospects of Japan’s defense industry.
If Japan can reliably produce the Soryu at a cost that is competitive with the latest German and French boats, it can capture a big part of that market, while also making the Western Pacific more dangerous for the PLAN. For Tokyo, this is a win-win."
For the many other articles on Australia by the Indian Ocean concerning the Soryu just write Soryu in the left, top corner, search box.
Pete

September 2, 2014

James Holmes - A Strategy for Submarines

A Virginia class SSN looking dark and dangerous.

The Virginia class SSN, at up to 8,000 tons, is slightly longer than the Los Angeles and Seawolf SSNs but much smaller than the four SSBNs in the diagram.
--- 
James Holmes, the world's premier academic expert on submarines and Professor of Strategy at the US Naval War College has written an excellent 6 page article full of interesting insights on submarines in the September-October edition of National Interest 

Hail to the Deep: A Strategy for Submarines

[just one insight of many] "Surface vessels navigate across what amounts to a featureless plain, whereas submarines roam within a vast, three-dimensional column of water. This flexibility opens up tactical and operational vistas for submarine skippers that are unavailable to their surface brethren, whose ships lumber around in (mostly) plain sight. On the other hand, sub crews have to contend with terrain when operating in shallow water. Undersea warfare resembles land warfare in that sense. Soldiers work around mountains, valleys and defiles. Submariners must take account of the sea floor’s uneven if not shifting topography—in the near-shore environment in particular."

August 26, 2014

Agni 6 (Agni VI) Why would India want to develop a 10,000 km Range ICBM?

The white lines represent the 10,000 km range (with a 500kg warhead?) of an Agni 6 (Agni VI) ICBM. The minimum and main Indian objective is the ability for at least one Agni 6 to deploy 3 tonnes of warheads from one missile onto Chinese northeast coast cities. The inner red circle is the 4,000 km range (with one tonne warhead?) of an Agni 4 (Agni IV) which may be operational in 2017. India's now operational Agni 3 (Agni III) can just reach Beijing with one 500 kg (no MIRV yet) warhead.
---

The flight of the 3 booster-stage Agni 6 with several MIRVs. Note that chaff might also be released to confuse anti-missle defence sensors including radar and perhaps satellite electro-optical.
---

Agni 6 (Agni VI)'s likely specifications are total weight 55,000 kgs, height 17-20 meters, 1.1 - 2.0 metre diameter, 3 stage rocket boosted. Launched from semi-hidden transporter erector launcher (TEL) truck, or disguised rail car. 
---

The short answer to "Why would India want to develop a 10,000 km Range ICBM?" is India may  develop ICBMs each able to launch several  warheads (MIRVs) (all up weighing 3 tonnes) capable of reaching northeast China - around 4,000 km from central India.

A basic law of physics is that due to gravity and momentum there is an inverse relationship between the weight of a warhead and the range of a missile. If the same rocket boosters (better with a slower burning propellant) for the heavy load were used for a light load, amounting to one 500kg warhead, then the range of that warhead may be 10,000 km.

Ranges involve capabilities even if India has no intentions about friendly countries. The 10,000 km range would bring the capitals of three of the other major nuclear powers into range. Such a long range increases flexibility, important for deterrence. For political reasons India probably does not wish to talk about longer range ICBMs - with 13,000 km capable of reaching all nuclear powers.

India has a right to defend itself. Having nuclear missiles with equal capabilities to the missiles of other great powers is important.

India wishes the 10,000 km range missile, known as the Agni 6 (Agni VI), to have characteristics equal to (parity with) the latest ICBMs of India's main nuclear opponent, China. China's latest ICBM under development is the DF-41 (Dongfeng-41) which will have the range to hit any capital of its nuclear opponents, including London and Washington DC. A December 2014 report indicated that China conducted the full test of the DF-41 involving MIRVs The DF-41 has an estimated range of 12,000km and “can carry up to 10 warheads, which separate from the rocket body during the final, third stage of flight and target individual cities. The military has previously carried out tests of the DF-41 but these probably involved only a single warhead”.

10,000 km range would also allow India to target SSBNs or warships (especially China's) attempting to hide as far out as the southern Indian Ocean and central Pacific Ocean. This is assuming India develops ICBM guidance systems (like China's DF-21D) against warships and submarines. India would wish that its Agni 6 would have at least the range of China's JL-2 SLBM (currently estimated as 8,000 kms).


The Agni 6 will be an evolutionary development of the Agni series of long range Indian ballistic missiles developed following the test of India's first nuclear device (1974).

Carrying multiple warheads (10 is the usual upper limit) on one missile is the most economical way to deploy warheads and such a deployment is more difficult to defeat with anti-missile defences. These multiple warheads are known as Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs). Along with live warheads light decoys can be carried (to draw off some anti-missile missiles) and various types of "chaff" (to confuse radar defences).

Agni 6  may be first tested in 2017 . Testing may last 4 years to 2021. Then in-service, operational around 2023 or later.

If India has developed fusion boosted fission weapons (like Joe-4) the yield of a single warhead missile may be up to 400 kT). If India has developed two-stage thermonuclear weapons - then each MIRV warhead may well have a yield between 100 to 250kt.

Cross reference this article with many concerning the Agni series including:

The Second Agni 5 Test, Any MIRV? September 16, 2013

China's, India's and Pakistan's Future Nuclear Rivalry August 12, 2013

Indian Strategic Weapons Programs - Gradual Progress, July 3, 2013

Agni 5's First Test in April 2012, April 27, 2012

Pete

August 24, 2014

India's Plans for 21 More Subs including SSNs

India financed the completion of INS Chakra (a Russian Akula 2) above - is long leasing it - and commissioned it into the Indian Navy in 2012. It is likely any Indian built SSN would draw heavily on Akula 2 technology with Russian assistance. See Pete's comment below.
 ---

Hindustan Shipyard (Visakhapatnam) - referred to in article below.
---

Mazagon Dock (Mumbai). - referred to in article below. 
---

Also see:

-  India's Rising Nuclear and Conventional Submarine Force, May 21, 2015 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/indias-rising-nuclear-and-conventional.html and

 -  South Asian Submarine Issues, December 7, 2014 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/south-asian-submarine-issues.html concerning the construction of India's emerging SSBN base at INS Varsha on the East coast below Visakhapatnam. 

COMMENT

Rajat Pandit in the Times of India article below is overly gullible in accepting that India can deploy substantially more submarines in the short-medium term. There are plans to launch two more Arihant class SSBN in the next few years, but very little detail about SSN plans and very tentative SSK completion plans. Plans include:

- 6 Scorpenes for Project-75 Scorpene (with indigenous DRDO AIP) contracts signed in 2005-2006. Little observable progress since.

- 6 Project-75I (for India) (with AIP and land attack missiles) selection process continued through 2007 to present day for Indian construction SSKs designed in Spain, Russia, France or Germany. Little observable progress.

Arihant class SSBNs (including INS Arihant launched in 2009. Within this class:
   = S-1 is the half submarine reactor test rig at Kalpakkam (India's southeast coast, just south of Chennai)
   = S-2 is INS Arihant itself (undergoing trials - may never be operational).
   = S-3 is INS Aridhaman (under construction at Shipbuilding Centre Vadodara (India's west coast, north of Mumbai) or Shipbuilding Centre Visakhapatnam (east coast) prior to launch perhaps in 2015)
   = S-4 no name yet (under construction Shipbuilding Centre Vadodara prior to launch perhaps in 2016)

- 6 (yes 6) SSNs - to be constructed at Visakhapatnam. Few details, no date milestones. This very old FAS report indicates India has been interested in building or buying 6 SSNs since the 1950s, with Russian assistance, for fleet protection, mainly against Chinese subs. India financed the completion of INS Chakra (ex Nerpa) (a Russian Akula 2) - is long leasing it - and commissioned it into the Indian Navy in 2012. Since commissing Chakra has been almost invisable. It may not be operational but rather a full test model for examination and trials by the India Navy, DRDO and India's nuclear reactor sector. It is likely any Indian built SSN would draw heavily on Akula 2 technology and be built with Russian assistance.

The gullible Times of India, July 14, 2014, article follows http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Move-to-fast-track-two-submarine-projects-gathers-steam/articleshow/38342676.cms :

"Move to fast-track two submarine projects gathers steam"


NEW DELHI: There is finally some urgency [words require deeds] being shown to rescue India's ageing and depleting underwater combat arm. The approval for two long-pending projects, one for construction of six advanced diesel-electric submarines and the other for six nuclear-powered ones, is well on the cards now.

Sources said the finance ministry has asked the defence ministry to "club" the separate projects to "draft a single note" for the requisite nod from Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). "The two projects have been languishing for long in the files being exchanged between the two ministries. The government seems serious about fast-track approvals this time," said a source.

The approvals, when they come, will not be a day too soon since India is down to just 13 old diesel-electric submarines, barely half of which are operational at any given time, and a single nuclear-propelled submarine INS Chakra on lease from Russia without any long-range missiles.

It takes at least seven to eight years for the first submarine to roll out once its construction project actually gets underway. The two projects will together entail a cost of well over Rs 1 lakh crore spread over 10-15 years.

'Project-75India' for the six conventional submarines, armed with both land-attack missiles and air-independent propulsion (AIP) for greater underwater endurance, was granted "acceptance of necessity'' in November 2007, as was reported earlier by TOI.

But the global tender to select the foreign collaborator for it is yet to be even issued. As per the existing plan, the first two submarines will be imported to save time, while three will be constructed at Mazagon Docks (Mumbai), and the sixth at Hindustan Shipyard (Visakhapatnam).

The project to build the six SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines, usually without nuclear-tipped missiles), in turn, is to be undertaken at the secretive ship-building centre (SBC) at [Visakhapatnam]. India's first three SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles) are already being built at the SBC to complete the country's nuclear weapons triad - the capability to fire nukes from land, air and underwater. The expertise gained in the construction of the SSBNs will help the SSN project, said sources.

The first SSBN, the 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, is slated to go for extensive sea trials soon after its miniature 83 mw pressurized light-water reactor, which went "critical" in August last year, attains "full power" in another month or so. The second, INS Aridhaman, is also to be "launched into water" soon with its hull and basic structure ready.

China, incidentally, has five nuclear and 51 conventional submarines. It is poised to induct up to five JIN-class SSBNs, with their new 7,400-km range JL-2 missiles, over the next few years.

India, however, has miserably failed in this arena. It was in 1999 that the CCS had approved a 30-year submarine-building plan, which envisaged induction of 12 new submarines by 2012, followed by another dozen by 2030.

But 15 years later, not a single new submarine has been inducted because of politico-bureaucratic apathy. The first programme, Project-75, was finalized only in 2005 to build six French Scorpene submarines at MDL. It's already running over four years behind schedule, with the first Scorpene now slated for delivery by November 2016 and the other five rolling out thereafter every 8-10 months. Moreover, the Rs 1,800 crore contract to buy 98 heavy-weight torpedoes to arm the submarines is also yet to be inked."

Also see South Asian Submarine Issues, December 7, 2014 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/south-asian-submarine-issues.html concerning increasing Chinese submarine issues in the Indian Ocean. 

Pete

August 21, 2014

More of INS Arihant Revealed - Strategic Update


Revealed on August 20, 2014 is INS Arihant's conventional sail, supporting diving planes, The sail is similar to US Ohio Class and Russian Delta class SSBNs. The small hump for SLBMs aft of Arihant's sail indicates a limited missile carrying capacity underlining Arihant's main role as an experimental testbed rather than being a fully armed SSBN. 

Information is mainly drawn from http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-this-is-ins-arihant-first-made-in-india-nuclear-submarine-578949?curl=1408597764 and my knowledge of Indian subs since 2009 with many previous articles on this blog concerning Arihant..

Published on August 20, 2014 is the first clear image of INS Arihant, India's first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine. It may initially be armed with 12 750km-range K-15 (Bo-5) SLBM or four larger K-4s with a 3,500km range. The image above is a still from this NDTV news report .
Arihant is the first of a class of three nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines with a displacement of 6,000 tonnes. Arihant has a Indian-Russian designed-and-built 83MW pressurized water reactor. 
This earlier image on this blog after Arihant was launched on July 26, 2009, gave little away (being highly touched up). Whereas the above photo clearly shows the distinctive 'hump' aft of the sail, where the ballistic missiles will be housed. The sail looks very similar to the sail of Russian Delta class SSBNs. Arihant appears to have a much better integrated missile hump than the Deltas and China's Type 094 SSBN.

The performance of SSBNs are critical for strategic stability in the region. If an SSBN is noisy (as the 094  presumably is) it will be easy to track. Excessive noise may not provide assured second-strike capability against an adversary. If Arihant is initially armed only with relatively short-range weapons such as the 750km K-15 missile, it would need to operate dangerously close to Pakistan's or China's home waters, thus making Arihant vulnerable to ASW resources. Arihant would be especially vulnerable if it has to move through narrow straits, like the Strait of Malacca, to get to Chinese waters. The longer-range K-4 missile has been tested from an undersea platform but is years from being operationally deployed on Arihant.

The nuclear sub design evolutionary process was particularly difficult for the US, Russia and China involving many test nuclear subs. As the UK and France received direct or indirect assistance from the US their evolutionary stages were far briefer involving fewer test subs. Much of the money India paid to Russia to modernise India's other nuclear submarine INS Chakra (the ex Russian Nerpa SSN) was for Chakra. But much of that money has also cross-subsidised Russian assistance to accelerate Arihant's development. A good strategy.
Like other key strategic weapons systems, Arihant is being jointly developed by the Indian Armed Services and India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). It is highly likely that Russian advisers are assisting with Arihant's development (especially with the reactor and also SLBM launch  techniques).


Connect this Arihant article with the first Arihant article (INS Arihant Launched July 26, 2009 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/arihant-indias-first-homebuilt-nuclear.html ) written on this blog days after Arihant was launched.

Pete