Iran Is Building Nuclear Submarines

[ashok321]

Iran Is Building Nuclear Submarines Despite Tensions

Iran says it is developing nuclear-powered submarines and building a new advanced destroyer for its navy, even as tensions rise with the United States over the Islamic Republic's military expansion.

The commander of the Iranian navy told the country’s semiofficial news agency, Fars, Tuesday that Iran’s nuclear agency was under orders to start producing nuclear reactors for fueling and propulsion systems that could be used on ships and submarines.

Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said the new destroyer would be more advanced than its two predecessors, Jamaran and Damavand. "I think that we will manage to accomplish this task in the current year," he added.

The announcement of the plans for Iran’s navy came at a time of ratcheting tensions with the United States over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions. In 2015, Tehran signed an agreement with the U.S. and other world powers, giving up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against the deal, brokered by his predecessor Barack Obama, and used his maiden speech at the United Nations General Assembly to call the agreement an “embarrassment.”

On Saturday, the Iranian government aired footage of a ballistic missile test it said it had carried out following a military parade in Tehran. Trump slammed the launch, which later turned out to be a hoax, on Twitter. “Iran just test-fired a Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Israel. They are also working with North Korea. Not much of an agreement we have,” he wrote late Saturday.

The video, released by the Iranian government, was more than seven months old. U.S. intelligence said there were no indications Iran had tested a missile, Fox News reported, revealing the fake video. Two unnamed American officials told the news channel the footage dated back to a failed launch in late January, during which the missile exploded shortly after takeoff.

The U.S. has said that Iranian actions such as the testing of ballistic missiles violate the nuclear agreement in spirit, though not technically breaking the deal. Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have shown Iran continues to comply with the terms of the 2015 agreement.

Iran, while condemning Trump over his bellicose rhetoric, has vowed not to break the nuclear accord. The Islamic Republic is allowed to maintain nuclear capabilities for energy but is banned from using it to create nuclear weapons. Sayyari said the nuclear submarines would be built within the framework of the deal. "We will certainly carry the job within the framework of the nuclear deal and the safeguard agreements and will not do anything beyond that," he said.

Tehran will also consult with the director general of the IAEA as it builds the nuclear engines, Sayyari added.

 

[OldTwilight]

Iran is developing MBT for 26-27 years and still the project is ongoing ( there is no usefull outcome ) ...
we are developing light jet trainer for almost 30 years and there is no result ...

don't take Iranian officials word seriously ... their only art is to make life harder for ordinary Iranian ...

 

[Cthulhu]

Fake news and lies, We can't even produce a proper diesel submarine let alone a nuclear one.

 

[OldTwilight]

Fake news and lies, We can't even produce a proper diesel submarine let alone a nuclear one.

we can but even if all of best scientist gather under management of an IR official , then they can't make even an screw .... when management is corrupted , then there won't be any result ...

 

[Fafnir]

Actually its well within irans capability to build a low power output reactor similar to the canadian SLOWPOKE reactor that could be used in a larger submarine,back in the 80s the canadians seriously considered upgrading their oberon class subs with these.This wont give you 30knt speeds but it would allow you to keep the batteries constantly charged and to stay down almost indefinitely at low speeds,basically a nuclear aip,the only real potential problem is not a technological but a legal one in that supposedly as part of the jcpoa iran agreed not to use nuclear technology for military uses,but there probably are loopholes that could be exploited to get around that.

 

[SOHEIL]

Everything looks BS at first !!!

 

[eagle2007]

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...

 

[PeeD]

This would be a game changing strategic asset which would be worth the investment in every aspect. For such cases Iran always acts serious.

Typical useless users of course beg to differ... (eagle2007 excluded)

 

[eagle2007]

PeeD,

I don't deny the usefulness of marine nuclear power for sure. However...

1) Cost- Simplest argument against Iran pursuing nuclear power is that compared to now fairly "everyday" non-nuclear AIP systems, it will be guaranteed to be MUCH MUCH more expensive to design, develop, manufacture, and then deal with (aka radioactive waste) down the road.
2) Tactics- No doubt nuclear propulsion for submarines still beat non-nuclear AIP in sheer endurance ("infinite" vs several weeks), but let's consider the benefits vs the cost. For global navies like the USN, the idea that your submarines almost never need to surface is incredibly appealing because it makes tracking their movements incredibly difficult because at speed, they could be half-way around the world before you'd ever see them surface. Sounds good for Iran right? Perhaps not. Iran's naval priorities are far more local (Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, maybe the Red Sea someday) and with current AIP technology, an endurance of even just 2 weeks would allow their submarines to operate in their areas with minimal surfacing and thus retain a nearly identical level of stealth as nuclear powered submarines would and, once again, at a fraction of the cost.
3) Technical- Let's face it, to-date, Iran has yet to build a true power-generating reactor. Arak was to be the first and it's construction was prolonged (but nearly finished) and now effectively reversed (being filled in with concrete and all). Even if Iran pursued a smaller reactor/submarine design, the idea of them building one for marine uses before successfully doing so on land first, seems a bit far-fetched. The knowledge gained from the project no doubt was invaluable but successful completion and then operating said reactor is still missing.

Let's not even talk about the fact that modern diesel submarines today are almost guaranteed to be quieter than the finest nuclear attack submarines being built today (one flaw of reactors is they can't be shut down truly and always generate sound, all you can do is sound-proof it as best you can).

So why bother with nuclear propulsion given all this?

Personally? I feel this is purely a vanity exercise designed to get folks' hopes up, like so many logical (but stupidly handled) programs before it. However, the sheer waste of resources and funds of those past project will look like pocket change compared to the idea of developing nuclear powered submarines.

And don't take this the wrong way, I feel this way about ANY navy today trying to pursue such technology solely. The fact the USN resists at all costs the idea of reviving diesel-powered attack submarines, even with the breakthroughs in AIP technology, is IMHO mostly out of pride and ego, not practicality or smart tactics. Nuclear propulsion is a money pit (and always was), made more evident with every AIP-equipped submarine that's launched in China, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan, Spain and India...

 

[PeeD]

I basically agree with you, knowing about the costs and the difficulty to get a mature reactor.

The point is that this is no ordinary asset. Just like MRBMs are no ordinary assets.
We also know about the huge advantage the U.S and more so the Russians have on subs compared to Iran. Catching up will be incredibly difficult... There is no RQ-170 or R-27 SLMB to learn from...

But at the end, some assets are worth such huge investments and effort. MRBM was such a case in the past and nuclear subs will be such a case in 10 years. It will be the first global strike asset for Iran, even before a long range bombers or a far away hypersonic near-space aircraft, not to talk about non-starters like a destroyer based surface fleet.

Would U.S nuclear attack submarines start shadowing them once they leave the port? Sure, but time will improve the situation.

After the war, the goal was a massive missile arsenal, now after 25 years, its here and they need to think about the next game changing capability. I don't see that strategic capability in airpower, modern land forces, nor surface navy but just in a nuclear submarine fleet.
Of course the goal of such a capability would be to put the U.S mainland at (non-nuclear?) risk (no offense mate).

Clear is that it is certainly within Irans capability til the next 10 years, the question is only if it gets the full necessary support.

 

[Stryker1982]

I basically agree with you, knowing about the costs and the difficulty to get a mature reactor.

The point is that this is no ordinary asset. Just like MRBMs are no ordinary assets.
We also know about the huge advantage the U.S and more so the Russians have on subs compared to Iran. Catching up will be incredibly difficult... There is no RQ-170 or R-27 SLMB to learn from...

But at the end, some assets are worth such huge investments and effort. MRBM was such a case in the past and nuclear subs will be such a case in 10 years. It will be the first global strike asset for Iran, even before a long range bombers or a far away hypersonic near-space aircraft, not to talk about non-starters like a destroyer based surface fleet.

Would U.S nuclear attack submarines start shadowing them once they leave the port? Sure, but time will improve the situation.

After the war, the goal was a massive missile arsenal, now after 25 years, its here and they need to think about the next game changing capability. I don't see that strategic capability in airpower, modern land forces, nor surface navy but just in a nuclear submarine fleet.
Of course the goal of such a capability would be to put the U.S mainland at (non-nuclear?) risk (no offense mate).

Clear is that it is certainly within Irans capability til the next 10 years, the question is only if it gets the full necessary support.

I'm curious, do you project to see us deploying a nuclear attack submarine with Ballistic or cruise missiles within 10 years? I'm not sure about cruise missiles, but maybe with some modifications to Khoramshahr, it could be used as the main armament of the sub.

 

[Muhammed45]

If Amir Sayyari has told something about this development, well, i would trust the main title of this thread. But there is a condition, if government of JCPOA support them, it's quite possible.
American worms are inventing new meaning of JCPOA's texture, we should do it too.
I can personally invent this : @PeeD
JCPOA is only about rocket warheads and missiles capable of carrying NUKEs. Nothing to do with a peaceful ! submarine engine. So it's completely legal.

We should bring back Arak and Fordo reactors, reach 50+ percent purity for that purpose. Our oil markets are not in EU, these governmental idiots are losing the remaining ones too. tho i prefer we stop selling oil

I hope Trump tears up JCPOA so that we can throw it in WC.

 

[scimitar19]

After the war, the goal was a massive missile arsenal, now after 25 years, its here and they need to think about the next game changing capability. I don't see that strategic capability in airpower, modern land forces, nor surface navy but just in a nuclear submarine fleet.
Of course the goal of such a capability would be to put the U.S mainland at (non-nuclear?) risk (no offense mate).

@PeeD
This is a very stretchy statement, lets just assume you wanna launch BM with conventional warheads on US mainland. What would you target in US mainland?!
Nuclear power plants, missile nuclear silos, nuclear weapon bases, hydro-power plants with huge dams, chemical storage units which US has a lot.
Targeting these installations would have catastrophic result for US main land almost or equal as bombing them with nuclear armed BM.
My point is why such reluctance and evasion to accept nuclear weapons as normal, its how I understand nuclear weapons are forbidden but having a conventional detonator that can yield same result as atomic bomb is OK?
I don't mean to troll its just mindfuck to think about it.

 

[Magi Brahmin]

not an easy task...

 

[PeeD]

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...