Iran Is Building Nuclear Submarines

[Muhammed45]

Russia's main focus was on these submarines. Agree that they are highly effective weapons. Especially when you had a number of enemies. Subs with nuclear power plant are our need
@PeeD
An example for it's asymmetric capabilities :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruced...ons-cables-in-new-global-threat/#5094fc856f9c

 

[Stryker1982]

I have no idea how a Iranian nuclear submarine fleet would look like and when it would become operational. I just know that nuclear submarines are very effective weapons, just like ballistic missiles are. Iran was smart enough to go for the latter after the war and it makes sense that it is smart enough to go for nuclear subs 30 years after the war.
Being smart enough to not go for something else but this very effective weapons is the key.

About the rest I can just speculate. 16, 10m long and 2m diameter missiles with a throw weight of 6 tons to 2000km each? Preferably solid fuel, alternatively RD-250 based. Each missile with 3 x 2 ton MIRV warheads with each warhead having 20 x 100kg submunitions.
This would result in 48 targets being engaged by each sub, each with 20, 100kg mach 3 warheads, ensuring ABM penetration and massive destruction of a min. 500m x 500m (hardened) target.
10 subs make 480 targets engaged with high PK. This is a massive capability that could take out many high-value assets globally. Of course the downside would be sub survivability and turn-around delivery time. Hence I don't know if such a conventional force makes sense finally.

So much for the ideas I have...

Do you think the Khoramshahr could be used for this task. It doesn't have the firepower your suggesting but that could take quite some time to get that kind of throw weight to 2000 km.

And do countries usually design their missiles for the subs, or do they design the subs to accommodate the missiles.

 

[scythian500]

ALCON,

Given how long it took for Iran to ALMOST finish the 40MW heavy-water reactor at Arak, I wouldn't hold my breath on building a similarly powerful reactor compact enough for a submarine...

Wrong comparison... When you are mastering a tech..the first models and prototypes take time..but logically next steps are faster.. First Iranian frigate took years and years to be built.. the second was much quicker...so, although, this field is new to Iran but no matter how long it takes it worth it... The first step is the hardest all the time... but what remains for Iran is very precious

 

[rahi2357]

I have no idea how a Iranian nuclear submarine fleet would look like and when it would become operational. I just know that nuclear submarines are very effective weapons, just like ballistic missiles are. Iran was smart enough to go for the latter after the war and it makes sense that it is smart enough to go for nuclear subs 30 years after the war.
Being smart enough to not go for something else but this very effective weapons is the key.

About the rest I can just speculate. 16, 10m long and 2m diameter missiles with a throw weight of 6 tons to 2000km each? Preferably solid fuel, alternatively RD-250 based. Each missile with 3 x 2 ton MIRV warheads with each warhead having 20 x 100kg submunitions.
This would result in 48 targets being engaged by each sub, each with 20, 100kg mach 3 warheads, ensuring ABM penetration and massive destruction of a min. 500m x 500m (hardened) target.
10 subs make 480 targets engaged with high PK. This is a massive capability that could take out many high-value assets globally. Of course the downside would be sub survivability and turn-around delivery time. Hence I don't know if such a conventional force makes sense finally.

So much for the ideas I have...

Sorry but what you say is wishful thinking . 10 nuclear submarines ?? Even UK has only 4 . And guess what , at any time only 1 out of 4 is patroling in the seas . The other 3 remain in Clyde base which could get destroyed with a single nuke .But does not matter because their second strike option ( that single submarine in the open seas ) has 16 missiles and 40 nuclear warheads . In our case without a nuclear warhead you just get some 12 to 16 conventional ballistic missiles .And again guess what , we can't move this submarine through the suez canal . The fuel never ends but you run out of food if you choose other ways . So all of these for some 12 to 16 conventional missiles which can't reach all potential targets ??? Each true SLBM nuclear submarine costs AT LEAST 1 billion dollars . 4 billions + AT LEAST 1 billion for R&D .5 billions for 12 to 16 missiles !!!
Do you even know how many conventional mobile ICBMs we can build with 5 billions ? Agni 5 costs 5 to 8 millions . 5 billions = up to 1000 AGNI 5 !!!
At one point the dude asks mr sayyari about it and this is his answer :

این چیزی که گفتند که ناوهای ما می‌توانند به سوخت هسته‌ای تجهیز بشوند و اجازه آن را هم دادند و دولت تصویب کرد، در این زمینه کاری هم شده است؟

سیاری:‌ اینها در مراحل تحقیقاتی است که در همان مراکز تحقیقاتی مربوطه روی آن کار می‌شود. آنهایی که از سوخت هسته ای استفاده می‌کنند، قطعا نیاز به تجدید سوخت کمتری دارند، می‌توانند بیشتر دریانوردی کنند و امکان حضور بیشتر و طولانی‌تری را در مناطق دریا آزاد دارند.

https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/779030/ساخت-زیردریایی-های-هسته-ای-در-مرحله-تحقیقات-است-پاسخ-ناو-نیروی
Nothing more . I am not sure but I think even if this comes to reality , the real purpose can be something else .Nuclear ships use HEU as fuel .The same thing could easily be used in a nuclear warhead !!! So once you make a nuclear ship you have one legitimate excuse to make HEU ( up to 96% ) under the terms of NPT !!!

 

[PeeD]

Sorry but what you say is wishful thinking .

Maybe who knows, its just thinking loud. But as you have realized this conventional capability, if operational, could become a nuclear one if the decision is taken. A ICBM would may be more cost efficient yes, but Iran has limited itself to 2000km to remain plausible. A sub fleet could be argued with increased survivability of MRBM's.

I'm not sitting here and expecting the described sub fleet, I just made a plausibility analysis

 

[rahi2357]

Maybe who knows, its just thinking loud. But as you have realized this conventional capability, if operational, could become a nuclear one if the decision is taken. A ICBM would may be more cost efficient yes, but Iran has limited itself to 2000km to remain plausible. A sub fleet could be argued with increased survivability of MRBM's.

I'm not sitting here and expecting the described sub fleet, I just made a plausibility analysis

It's ok bro
I say we can make ICBM and yet limit ourselves to 2000 km .We already did it ! Khoramshahr is a true IRBM with a single 650 kg warhead . We can increase the weight of warhead and use high launch trajectory to decrease the range from 10000 km to 1000 km !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trajectories_of_Hwasong-14.svg

Using high trajectory is a nightmare for ABMs too .

 

[PeeD]

The covert ICBM concept works as nuclear deterrent, but the submarine fleet can be a credible conventional global strike capability, a "legal" one. That's the difference between them.

I personally also think that Iran has already a ICBM capability for nuclear strike. But high trajectory is again hard to convince the europeans with, it becomes too obvious, less so with a Khorramshahr like heavy payload missile. Also lofted trajectory creates higher temperatures for the heat shield, I haven't done the maths but it surely would approach ICBM heat levels. Credibly selling it as a ABM mean would probably not work out, although yes it would be a benefit for that.

 

[AUz]

Lol..another day, another Iranian claim

I'd be happy to see them succeed in building effective and powerful naval fleet but we all know that past results from Iran haven't been very promising

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD I think @rahi2357 is right here, instead of trying to build 10 nuclear submarines at enormous cost and at best symbolic benefit, we can invest the many billion $ into our regional power. With the money needed to build 10 SSBNs you could have dozens of AIP subs, destroyers, a good number of high performance aircraft.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

At that future stage I'm talking about, regional supremacy would be a given and (legal) global strike becomes a requirement.
If Iran would still struggle with regional U.S assets or even regional adversaries, then yes, concentrate in what you said.
Things can or can not change in a decade time.

 

[Cyberian]

What is this? Some kind of a new fairy tale being produced by Iran's Ministry of Propaganda?

 

[TheImmortal]

ALCON,

Given how long it took for Iran to ALMOST finish the 40MW heavy-water reactor at Arak, I wouldn't hold my breath on building a similarly powerful reactor compact enough for a submarine...

To be fair,

I don't think it was due to technical challenges.

Arak was never completed because it was a tactic or sacrificial lamb for Iran's nuclear program in the later stages.

Iran knew it was eventually going to negotiate and would have to give up the reactor and replace it with a non-plutonium producing, thus it was purposely never completed to avoid setting off a crisis before the negotiations.

It was kept it "near completion status" as a back up plan in case US backed out of negotiations.

 

[PeeD]

A quite applicable case to a nuclear submarine project would be Irans Keyhan OTH radar network.

Iran had nothing to learn from and the technology was only in the hand of the 5 superpowers (+ Australia with US help).

But due to the strategic importance it was decided to go ahead anyway at any cost. A huge, unique, project from scratch with hunderts of scientists was started and they managed to complete it successfully. Today Iran is one of the few nations in the world with that strategic 3000km early warning capability.
Hence if something is judged to be of strategic importance, even if it has to be started from scratch, the necessary means will be allocated. How good the end product is and how long it takes, are the only questions.

 

[OldTwilight]

A quite applicable case to a nuclear submarine project would be Irans Keyhan OTH radar network.

Iran had nothing to learn from and the technology was only in the hand of the 5 superpowers (+ Australia with US help).

But due to the strategic importance it was decided to go ahead anyway at any cost. A huge, unique, project from scratch with hunderts of scientists was started and they managed to complete it successfully. Today Iran is one of the few nations in the world with that strategic 3000km early warning capability.
Hence if something is judged to be of strategic importance, even if it has to be started from scratch, the necessary means will be allocated. How good the end product is and how long it takes, are the only questions.

We are capable , but there are great mismanagement and manger who only say " we can't " .... if the head of our government decide that we should have it and is serious , his direct order and power will be enough ... unfortunately if he doesn't supervise project personally , there won't be any result .... this is one of our greatest weakness ...

 

[AmirPatriot]

@AmirPatriot

At that future stage I'm talking about, regional supremacy would be a given and (legal) global strike becomes a requirement.
If Iran would still struggle with regional U.S assets or even regional adversaries, then yes, concentrate in what you said.
Things can or can not change in a decade time.

Regional supremacy is an enormous achievement in itself. I think you are talking about something many decades away.