India to Build 6 Nuclear-Powered Submarines - Navy Chief

[Skull and Bones]

Yeah but this was a plan even then. I remember- 2 Arihant class subs and then 4 larger (9000 T) subs as ballistic detterents. Nav chief is claiming 6 SSNs are coming? Not Ballistic deterrents?

My guess is, SSBNs will have a separate production lineup. SSNs are a new addition to the portfolio. My guts says, after these initial 4 SSBNs, there might be a possibility of even larger SSBN capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs.

or buy 6 nuc subs from russia?

Wouldn't that be even worse for you guys?

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

My guess is, SSBNs will have a separate production lineup. SSNs are a new addition to the portfolio. My guts says, after these initial 4 SSBNs, there might be a possibility of even larger SSBN capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs.



Wouldn't that be even worse for you guys?

I don't think that India should go for SSBNs capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs. Reason being that India has less than 200 Nukes, so it would be unwise to put so many Nukes (15 MIRV ICBMS means 75 Nukes , even if we count 3 warheads per missile) on a single Submarine, as in case of accident or sinking by enemy action, we would lose large part of our deterrence.

Thus I would advocate that India construct technologically good submarines capable of carrying 5-10 ICBMS (Similar to Aridhman class capable of carrying 8 K4s; no need to increase number of missile per submarine), and concentrate on improving stealth by providing anechoic tiles (reducing Sonar detectability) , non-magnetized steel (reducing Magnetic anomaly), and improving diving depth so that submarine could dive below Thermocline layer (reducing Thermal signature as water from thermocline layer downwards does not mix with surface water and thus there is no temperature anomaly created by hot water discharge of Submarine reactor and such depths of nearly 600m and more reduces and water disturbance on surface); and make large number of those SSBNs.

 

[Skull and Bones]

I don't think that India should go for SSBNs capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs. Reason being that India has less than 200 Nukes, so it would be unwise to put so many Nukes (15 MIRV ICBMS means 75 Nukes , even if we count 3 warheads per missile) on a single Submarine, as in case of accident or sinking by enemy action, we would lose large part of our deterrence.

Thus I would advocate that India construct technologically good submarines capable of carrying 5-10 ICBMS (Similar to Aridhman class capable of carrying 8 K4s; no need to increase number of missile per submarine), and concentrate on improving stealth by providing anechoic tiles (reducing Sonar detectability) , non-magnetized steel (reducing Magnetic anomaly), and improving diving depth so that submarine could dive below Thermocline layer (reducing Thermal signature as water from thermocline layer downwards does not mix with surface water and thus there is no temperature anomaly created by hot water discharge of Submarine reactor and such depths of nearly 600m and more reduces and water disturbance on surface); and make large number of those SSBNs.

India has around 150 active warheads, while it can assemble somewhere around 500-700 warheads in very quick time frame. And has enough purified fissile materials to make around 1500 warheads if situation demands. In a long term time frame, if the situation deteriorates, I see India maintaining around 350-400 warheads in active duty.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

India has around 150 active warheads, while it can assemble somewhere around 500-700 warheads in very quick time frame. And has enough purified fissile materials to make around 1500 warheads if situation demands. In a long term time frame, if the situation deteriorates, I see India maintaining around 350-400 warheads in active duty.

But that is IF we expand our arsenal to around 500. With current arsenal ,a technically sophisticated large SSBN fleet of around 8-10 small subs capable of carrying ICBMs in single digit range would be better than a fleet of 3-4 large sub wach carrying 20-30% of total deterrence of India.

 

[Skull and Bones]

But that is IF we expand our arsenal to around 500. With current arsenal ,a technically sophisticated large SSBN fleet of around 8-10 small subs capable of carrying ICBMs in single digit range would be better than a fleet of 3-4 large sub wach carrying 20-30% of total deterrence of India.

India always wanted a larger Submarine, the only constraint was the power of the reactor. I see that constraint being removed, and there's no holding back going for a relatively larger submarine.

But that is IF we expand our arsenal to around 500. With current arsenal ,a technically sophisticated large SSBN fleet of around 8-10 small subs capable of carrying ICBMs in single digit range would be better than a fleet of 3-4 large sub wach carrying 20-30% of total deterrence of India.

The number of SSBNs will also increase in the future, apart from these 4 Arihant and larger Arihant classes.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

India always wanted a larger Submarine, the only constraint was the power of the reactor. I see that constraint being removed, and there's no holding back going for a relatively larger submarine.

Large submarines bring certain benefits as it allows for design of more technically complex submarines. I am not advocating against larger submarine. I am advocating for use of extra power that is derived from reactor to improve stealth, rather than piling up more silos on a sub.

Anechoic tiles need space and increase size of a Submarine, so does improvement in diving depth which would require better and thicker steel. This increase in size/weight would require a larger reactor for traction.

What I am advocating is a large submarine by displacement which carrier 7-8 ICBMs, but is practically invisible during deployment. I do not think that any planner would keep even 5% of deterrence on a single boat, as loss of that boat to accident or enemy action would mean loss of deterrence too.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Eh, wish Israel had the economic power to build some modern naval ships and submarines.
Maybe India and Israel should join forces on this aspect too

If you mean being built in Israel, that will surely not happen. The next line of SSNs and SSBNs will be made in India, even the SSKs, Israel can get some subsystems through, however.

 

[HariPrasad]

I don't think that India should go for SSBNs capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs. Reason being that India has less than 200 Nukes, so it would be unwise to put so many Nukes (15 MIRV ICBMS means 75 Nukes , even if we count 3 warheads per missile) on a single Submarine, as in case of accident or sinking by enemy action, we would lose large part of our deterrence.

Thus I would advocate that India construct technologically good submarines capable of carrying 5-10 ICBMS (Similar to Aridhman class capable of carrying 8 K4s; no need to increase number of missile per submarine), and concentrate on improving stealth by providing anechoic tiles (reducing Sonar detectability) , non-magnetized steel (reducing Magnetic anomaly), and improving diving depth so that submarine could dive below Thermocline layer (reducing Thermal signature as water from thermocline layer downwards does not mix with surface water and thus there is no temperature anomaly created by hot water discharge of Submarine reactor and such depths of nearly 600m and more reduces and water disturbance on surface); and make large number of those SSBNs.

Nonody know how many Nuclear weapons we may have but we atleast have a Nuclear material to construct 2000+ bombs. Once our fast breeder reactors are commissioned, We will get a fissile material of making 700 bombs every years. We must do a futuristic planning and make submarines accordingly.

 

[kaykay]

I don't think that India should go for SSBNs capable of carrying 15-20 ICBMs. Reason being that India has less than 200 Nukes, so it would be unwise to put so many Nukes (15 MIRV ICBMS means 75 Nukes , even if we count 3 warheads per missile) on a single Submarine, as in case of accident or sinking by enemy action, we would lose large part of our deterrence.

Thus I would advocate that India construct technologically good submarines capable of carrying 5-10 ICBMS (Similar to Aridhman class capable of carrying 8 K4s; no need to increase number of missile per submarine), and concentrate on improving stealth by providing anechoic tiles (reducing Sonar detectability) , non-magnetized steel (reducing Magnetic anomaly), and improving diving depth so that submarine could dive below Thermocline layer (reducing Thermal signature as water from thermocline layer downwards does not mix with surface water and thus there is no temperature anomaly created by hot water discharge of Submarine reactor and such depths of nearly 600m and more reduces and water disturbance on surface); and make large number of those SSBNs.

Well nuclear warheads are not an issue as with requirement, we can add as many as we want. Though I agree that 4-6 SSBNs with 8-12 SLBMs each( MIRVed ofcourse), are enough for deterrent purposes

On Topic, India is looking to have atleast 8 operational SSNs in next decade. 3 for aircraft carriers and rest for other roles.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Wouldn't that be even worse for you guys?

We can create a mushroom cloud over your major cities and financial hubs any time.Now get your vegan *** out of this forum.

 

[Providence]

There is no proof that India has developed 100MW+ miniature nuclear reactors normally needed for power packed SSNs.

 

[AMCA]

We can create a mushroom cloud over your major cities and financial hubs any time.Now get your vegan *** out of this forum.

How can you do that without going down yourself? We at least have the option to defend against Incoming missiles and a 2nd strike capability.

There is no proof that India has developed 100MW+ miniature nuclear reactors normally needed for power packed SSNs.

There wasn't any proof that we developed an 85 MW reactor either until we revealed it .

 

[Providence]

How can you do that without going down yourself? We at least have the option to defend against Incoming missiles and a 2nd strike capability.



There wasn't any proof that we developed an 85 MW reactor either until we revealed it .

No the 85MW reactor was developed in multiple phases and everyone knew on the streets that India was developing one !

 

[AMCA]

No the 85MW reactor was developed in multiple phases and everyone knew on the streets that India was developing one !

I am sorry sir. But I aint came across anyone on the street who knew concretely that India was developing one. It was only a rumor until it was revealed. 100 MW reactor is the next logical step for India to take and though it is not easy to leapfrog 15 MW in terms of technology but I am very positive that India is working on it.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

:partey: