Why Russian Submariners Don't Smile

Here's the main list why Russians don't smile.

Unsmiling Russians cannot even be blamed on Russia's current autocrat, Vladimir Puton (see his KGB mugshot). This is because unsmiling Russian autocracy goes back many centuries, eg. Ivan the Terrible wasn't smiley, happy'go'lucky. 

Smiling introduces too much human warmth in cold Russia - where you need a tough, untrusting,  exterior. Only Gorbachev was able to introduce little smiling for a few years between Communism and Putinism.

In Russian submarines, notorious for sinking more than anyone elses, smiling can introduce seawater.

An Unsmiling Russian Submarine Putinesque Political Kommissar . Note, she is turning red, because she must hold her breath. (Courtesy Steven Universe)
---

Gessler: Future Indian Nuclear Subs, SLBMs: Comment 3

Following India's 6 Future Alpha SSNs - SSBN Protectors  of April 7, 2021 Gessler made some learned and extensive comments on April 9, 2021. Pete has added many links. Here is the third Gessler instalment:

Keeping in mind the fact that the S-5 class will probably have 12 missile tubes storing future K-5 or K-6 intercontinental SLBMs (which will most definitely have Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles or MIRVs). Each S-5 boat, even if we assume a relatively modest MIRV capacity of 3 RVs per missile, would be carrying 36 nuclear warheads. Three such boats, if we assume each has it's own permanently assigned load of missiles, would require 108 warheads. If we're talking four boats (following the UK and France pattern of SSBN numbers) that goes to 144 warheads. That's close to the total stockpile that most experts assume India to have currently around 150 warheads. 

If we assume 4 MIRVs per SLBM (like the slide here) shown by DRDO's then-chairman Dr. VK Saraswat at IIT-Bombay university.) then it would be 48 warheads per sub, and 144 for Three boats and 192 for Four boats. With a quoted throwaway weight of 2 tons, likelihood is high for there to be indeed 4 x 500kg MIRVs per K-5/K-6.  

Personally I'd definitely assume India has more than 150 nukes even currently, the delays of Plutonium deliveries to the PFBR prototype also point at the possibility of the Pu going to fill other, more pressing & strategically important requirements, like perhaps building more bombs. By the time the S-5s come online, I'd certainly expect us to have more than 150. 

However - it must be remembered that India, with two hostile neighbours who share land borders, certainly has no plans of giving up it's land-based rail and road-mobile nuclear deterrent like UK & France have done. This portion of the triad will continue to be armed in the form of Agni-4, 5 and the in-development Agni-6 with MIRVs. The Agni-6 is reportedly designed to have a throw weight of 3 tons, so we're again looking at a significant MIRV payload (again, refer to the slide here from same source at IIT-Bombay presentation). 

And we won't be giving up the Air-launched deterrent either (like UK has done), the presence of nuclear gravity bombs as well as the ongoing development of a nuclear-capable Liquid-Fuel Ramjet controlled (LFRJ)  ALCM intended for the Indian Rafales (very similar to the French ASMP-A missile  also see and here   ) indicate that this leg of the triad is here to stay as well. 

What all this means is that we'll be needing a significant number of warheads (at least 100) outside of CASD as well. And this just goes to show that there's no way we can continue operating Arihants as nuclear-armed SSBNs even after S-5s come in. We just won't have enough nukes for them, and that's just part of the reason compelling us to convert the Arihants into conventionally-armed SSGNs in the 2030s - poised to be the ideal platform for cruise missile strikes on likes of Karachi's naval facilities/airbases or any Chinese naval presence at Gwadar in the event of open hostilities."

Gessler: Future Indian SSNs, SSGNs & SSBNs: Comment 2

Following India's 6 Future Alpha SSNs - SSBN Protectors of April 7, 2021 Gessler made some learned and extensive comments on April 9, 2021. Pete has added many links. Here is the second of 3 Gessler instalments:

Regarding the use of vertical launch systems (VLS) system to launch SLCMs from the Alphas - I don't think they will go down that way. Allow me to explain my point of view. 

In the 2030s, when the S-5 SSBNs start becoming available for carrying forward the role of what the Royal Navy calls Continuous At-Sea Deterrence or CASD... (I'm using that expression because the hydrodynamic testing model of S-5 has it's bow planes attached to the hull roughly at the same spot where the UK Vanguard-class SSBN has them, instead of on the conning tower like Arihant class...though the similarities are likely to end there).

As each new S-5 becomes available to take over the CASD role, a corresponding Arihant-class boat would in all likelihood be retired from performing any form of deterrence role, after which it would probably be subjected to a scheduled refit and  refueling of the reactor. So what will the Indian Navy do with these boats then? They would still have at least 10-15 more years of service life left. 

My guess: they will convert them into performing a role that is somewhat less demanding (on the part of keeping at least one boat operational at all times) - into an SSGN role. When the Arihants are subjected to refit and refueling, the nuclear armed K-4 IRBMs/SLBMs  ballistic missiles can be swapped out and replaced with up to 5 or 6 Nirbhay-type SLCMs per silo. The Arihant's silos were designed to accept either one K-4 or three smaller K-15s mini-SLBMs per tube so we know it is designed to support the multi-round ejection systems needed for such 'pack' VLS. 

The K-15 missile has a diameter of 0.74m compared to 0.52m for the Nirbhay, so it can potentially pack 5 or 6 (more?) Nirbhays in those tubes I'm guessing, for a total of 20-24 vertically-launched cruise missiles per boat (someone needs to do the math on that diameter, either way very similar to the 7-round Tomahawk [Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT)] on some Virginia-class boats). 

So, better to not encumber the Alphas with the additional weight and power requirements needed to fulfill an SSGN role - better to let them be as light and sleek as possible for reasons of speed, stealth as well as reactor efficiency, all critical for a hunter-killer SSN. 

Considering India does not have stockpiles of hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons, we might not even have the number it would be needed to simultaneously arm 3 or 4 S-5 class as well as 3 Arihant-class (discounting the S-4*). So it would have to be an inevitability to bring the Arihants off the line as deterrence platforms once the S-5s start coming in.

Satellite Photo INS Arihant & Arighat Berthed Alongsid

Interesting information by Joseph P Chacko at frontierIndia. com titled “Google Maps Show Indian [Arihant class] Submarines Berthed Alongside” of February 5, 2021:

The photo in question, showing INS Arihant and Arighant together, at right, berthed alongside the pier. (Photo reproduced from idrw . com December 18, 2020.) 

---

“The [Arihants ] are easily identifiable as the fins are located in the forward with the diving planes are fin mounted. Forward fin permits positioning of missile launchers aft. None of the the Indian conventional submarines have this feature

...Initially [what became INS Arihant] was conceived as SSN based on the [Soviet] Charlie1 class design 

...However, after the first concept design was made the requirement to make an SSBN post Pokhran 2 (aka II) in May 98, a decision was made to make Arihant as an SSBN. 

The objective was achieved with the design collaboration with Rubin design bureau in St Petersburg.” Much more. 

Gessler: Future Indian SSNs & SSBNs: Comment 1.

Following India's 6 Future Alpha SSNs - SSBN Protectors of April 7, 2021 Gessler made some learned and extensive comments on April 9, 2021. Pete has added some comments in [...] brackets. Here is the first of 3 Gessler instalments:

“@Pete. I'm sceptical about the figures of India’s future indigenous Project 75 Alpha SSN tonnage/displacement floating around in the media. I suspect those displacement figures (not only mentioned by Hindustan Times but many others as well) are from the same erroneous sources that also claimed that the S-3 boat (INS Arighat) the sister of S-2 (INS Arihant) would be considerably bigger and carry 8 missile silos. 

The photo in question, showing INS Arihant and Arighant, at right, berthed alongside each other and the pier. (Photo reproduced from idrw . com December 18, 2020.)
---

But satellite images (like this) of the Ship Building Centre (SBC) harbour at Visakhapatnam (Visak, most commonly pronounced & spelled Vizag) prove that both of the Arihant-class INS Arihant and INS Arighat are the same eg. Arihant class displacement 6,000 tonnes (surfaced, confirmed), length (116m) and size (Beam 11m, Draught 15m), and carry the same number of missile tubes, ie. 4. [See "Future of Indian Navy - Nuclear Submarines"]

Now don't get me wrong - I still am inclined to believe the 4th nuclear boat to be built by SBC (known in the media as the S-4* or S-4 Star) [see "Ships in class"] would indeed be considerably bigger than the Arihant-class, satellite images of a new submarine dockyard shelter constructed at Vizag which is up to 40m longer than Arihant's shelter substantiate the theory that a new, bigger boat is around the corner - and it definitely can't be the S-5 yet. So it has to be the rumoured S-4* SSBN, with perhaps 8 silos.

Nuclear expert Hans M. Kristensen's observation of the same summarized in his tweet, though he speculates this to be intended for the S-4 itself (3rd nuclear boat), not the S-4*. Personally, I would think all three Arihant-class SSBNs will be of the same dimensions, it would not make any sense to have the last boat in class to be substantially different than the others.

The S-4* on the other hand might make sense as both a test platform for new, larger equipment that may eventually find use on the still larger S-5 class down the line, once the systems mature after at-sea testing on this boat. The Arihants would have to be at sea (or in refit), delivering on the deterrence role, you can't ask them to come off their vitally important duties to function as test platforms for new stuff - the S-4* might make a lot of sense in that respect. 

Another reason to be sceptical about the Alpha's displacement figures would be that pretty much all available sources (unless I'm misremembering) quote the Arihant-class boats' surfaced displacement as approx. 6,000 tonnes. 

So if the Alpha indeed turns out to 'Arihant without silos' then there's no way it'll also be 6,000 tonnes surfaced. The Alphas will have to be 5,000 tonnes [surfaced], but even that is speculation.

So personally I'll hold my horses for now regarding the displacement figures."

[For comparison see the 6,000 tonne (likely submerged) 100m long, Brazilian future SSN Alvaro Alberto (SNB or SN-BR). Implicitly its displacement may also be around 5,000 tonnes surfaced.] 

On Saturday April 17 Gessler's 2nd informative Comment will appear. 

Yuan-submarine (LABs & LIBs) propulsion estimates

Following Lithium-ion Batteries: South Korean & Chinese Subs of April 9, 2021, Anonymous on April 13, 2021 kindly provided these comments and calculations (with some editing by Pete) regarding battery propulsion for China’s Yuan-class submarine:

The advertisement for China's Winston Battery WB-LYP10000AHA Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) indicates the average on-board consumption of a Yuan-submarine, when not moving, is some “38kW/h” meaning that its hotel load is 38kW. 

The total energy of Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) (assuming they are 400 tonnes in weight) in the Yuan-class seems to be around 11 MWh or more. The Chinese make the incredible claim the Yuan-class using LABs can stay under water for 12 days! [1, 2] Such a LABs-based submarine does not exist. A capacity of 31 MWh, 3300 nm over 33 days for Yuan (LIBs) also looks like perfect nonsense. 580nm over 6 days looks more reasonable [3].

[1] A Japanese ton is the same as a metric tonne, ie. 1,000kg. This calculation example uses data of a Japanese GS-Yuasa LAB, type MSE-3000 (weight = 212kg, capacity = 3000 Ah, voltage = 2V). As the energy of a type MSE-3000 is 6 kWh ( = 3000 Ah x 2V) , then energy of 400 tonne of MSE-3000 is 11.3 MWh ( = 400 ton/212 kg x 6 kWh). Then total hotel load per day is 0.912 MWh/day (= 38 kW x 24h). Endurance is 11.3 (MWh)/0.912(MWh/day) = 12 days.

[2] Generally, the average hotel load of diesel submarine is around 150kW. Maximum (90% discharge depth) and repeatable (30% discharge depth) endurance of a Yuan-class using LABs might be 3 days or less.

[3] On LIBs, if the hotel load and propulsion output at 4 knots are 150kW and 50kW, respectively, total output per day (= (150kW + 50kW) x 24h) is 4.8MWh/day. Then endurance and distance, at 4 knots, is 6 days (90% of discharge depth) and 580nm ( = 4knots x 24h x 6 days). And endurance when not moving (= 0 knots) is 7.8 days (=31MWh / (150kW x 24h) x 0.9).