INS Arihant left crippled after ‘accident’ 10 months ago

[ziaulislam]

Yes basically this was also one of my questions that why nuke tipped ballistic missiles are carried by nuclear powered missiles. Also does a submarine need a diiferent specific tech to be able to fire ballistic missiles?

yes, the real problem is how to launch a blastic missile while submerged..you have to ignite it underwater and its challenge, a bigger challenge than submerged crusie missle launch
till recently (1990s) china subs use to surface before launch, india has nt completely achieved this capability either

 

[Safriz]

yes, the real problem is how to launch a blastic missile while submerged..you have to ignite it underwater and its challenge, a bigger challenge than submerged crusie missle launch
till recently (1990s) china subs use to surface before launch, india has nt completely achieved this capability either

arent you missing something here?
Only the largest in the world, Soviet Typhoon class subs could launch Ballistic missiles while surfaced.
Any other sub has to be underwater to be able to launch a ballistic missile.

 

[ziaulislam]

arent you missing something here?
Only the largest in the world, Soviet Typhoon class subs could launch Ballistic missiles while surfaced.
Any other sub has to be underwater to be able to launch a ballistic missile.

just to make things clear, everyone want the subs to be submerged at time of launching as to be protected against surface and air threats

this is what i meant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf-class_submarine
oldest subs could only launch missles while surfaced due to lack of technology
newer subs in 1960s acquired this technology and china somewhere in late 1990s

though USN acheived it very early so did the soviets but china was not able to do it

 

[Safriz]

just to make things clear, everyone want the subs to be submerged at time of launching as to be protected against surface and air threats

this is what i meant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf-class_submarine
oldest subs could only launch missles while surfaced due to lack of technology
newer subs in 1960s acquired this technology and china somewhere in late 1990s

though USN acheived it very early so did the soviets but china was not able to do it

No. being submerged makes it easier to eject the missile by Water pressure combined with gas pressure. On surface too much gas pressure will be needed to eject the missile.

 

[ziaulislam]

No. being submerged makes it easier to eject the missile by Water pressure combined with gas pressure. On surface too much gas pressure will be needed to eject the missile.

okay, i have very limited knowledge on this topic..what were the reasons for Chinese to acquire the tech so late

 

[Ocean]

No. being submerged makes it easier to eject the missile by Water pressure combined with gas pressure. On surface too much gas pressure will be needed to eject the missile.

But why ballistic launch submarines are always powered by nuclear reactors?
Also in order to launch ballistic missiles a dedicated submarine with a different tech is required?

 

[ziaulislam]

i believed that pressure air system first propells the blastic missles out of the water and than the missle is ignited
i also believed this is easier on surface due to less resistance than being submerged at depts

anyways thanks for pointing that out

 

[Safriz]

okay, i have very limited knowledge on this topic..what were the reasons for Chinese to acquire the tech so late

So.. you think that by writing one comment..i become an expert? ..well thanks for that

But why ballistic launch submarines are always powered by nuclear reactors?
Also in order to launch ballistic missiles a dedicated submarine with a different tech is required?

There is no necessity for a Ballistic missile carrying submarine to be nuclear powered.
But it makes sense for such submarines to be nuclear powered as these are "Second strike" machines, or they are supposed to act after their country has been annihilated by a nuclear attack. So there is nothing left to go back to and get replenished or get more fuel from. So they are nuclear powered so that they can in theory , remain at sea for unlimited or at least very prolonged periods of time.
For SSBN as they are called, the only requirement is a pressure hull strong enough to be able to carry the load of at least 20+ ton missiles and the launch system, which generated concentrated stress on submarine's structure.
Perhaps even more difficult than Building the SSBn is the design of SLBM and launch / storage tubes and systems.
French spent 6.7 Billion USd on design and development and another 3.9 Billion USD on serial production of their M51 SLBM.
The British spend 2.75 Billion USD per year on running and maintenance of their 4 Vanguard class SSBN carrying 16 trident missiles each.
So its not cheap option.

 

[ziaulislam]

So.. you think that by writing one comment..i become an expert? ..well thanks for that


There is no necessity for a Ballistic missile carrying submarine to be nuclear powered.
So its not cheap option.

you are our guy for strategic and blastic missiles

But why ballistic launch submarines are always powered by nuclear reactors?
Also in order to launch ballistic missiles a dedicated submarine with a different tech is required?

golf class were diesel electric yet blastic
anyway nuclear arre too expensive
i think we should stick to SLCM babur