Actually to wipe out a city, 4 100 KT warheads are more effective than one 400 KT warhead.
Arihant-class SSBN - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
If that's true, then there's no need to restrict K-4 to 1.3m, it could have been much bigger, since missile clearance is not much. An Ohio class has 2.2m cells, and Trident is 2.11m. So yeah, there's room for a slightly bigger K-5, if it's meant for Arihant class.
But the Arihant's cell is definitely not bigger than the 2m+ of the K-6.
This part can be proved based on available public info and a bit of estimate / extrapolating from the old slcm schematics
source ; Significant Project Milestones Of S-2/ARIHANT S-73 SSBN
So if you are going to fit it inside S2 and others, the entire 3 missile launcher container can only fit if the silo dia is higher. Plus you probably also need the plume deflector inside some gaps. Even if it is say for slcm/slbm k-15 or whatever, the dimension shown kinda gives hint of the space needed inside to fit it. The ssbn silo dia measures will always be highly confidential. This also is similar to the chinese estimate. Since S2 ATV was more on the tech demo side than a full fledged high end SSBN , it is also likely K5 was not planned for this batch.
My point is , in the SLBM slide, they showed 1 slbm , a very good config one, crmc mirv everything incorporated but in A6-5 and A6 there were 2 distinct models which is now realised in practical development. So other than making really long range version, this one SLBM lets say K5 should be good for the long range second strike vector purpose. Further K6 K8 etc would only increase the complexity of further developing the weapons system complex, fitting inside the sub, maintaining etc. So is it necessary to go for variety or should they generalise under K5 solely ?
Assuming all four Arihant-class boats have the same VLS (they likely do), I have to go with the notion that K-5 is the definitive capability for this class of boat - the maximum that can be achieved given the launch tube dimensions. 'Definitive' would mean basically two things in the context - a range of at least 5,000 km so that our boats aren't forced to patrol in a very specific part of the northern Bay of Bengal in order to be able to reach Beijing (which makes them vulnerable to hostile SSN action) and are instead able to launch from anywhere in the Bay as soon as they drop off the continental shelf off Vizag coast.
Second thing would be MIRV which implies an increased payload capacity over that same range.
I'm not convinced that both K-5 & K-6 are meant for the S5 class. Why would we bother with so many iterations for a submarine that wouldn't even hit the water till well into next decade? No, I think K-5 is definitive capability for current boats - likely to be employed on S4 & S4* at least. The K4's first test was in 2010, which means a lot of it (barring any Russian help) is based on same generation of tech as Agni-3. We've advanced a full generation past that and a missile of the same dimensions is now able to do so much more. We need to be able to take advantage of that and that's what K5 likely represents.
The K6 & S5 combo will bring a whole new set of capabilities - like sending deterrence patrols off into the wider IOR.
Carrying full-size dummy RVs may not be something we can afford given our current MIRV bus is likely to only support 3-4 RVs max. We're more likely to rely on penetration aids like inflatable aluminized balloons (for exo-atmosphere) and chaff dispensers mounted on the back of RVs (for after re-entry, won't help against IR-guided KVs but will evade likes of S400 or PAC-3).
Maybe a 50-50 setup is possible (2 RVs, 2 decoys), but it would still severely dent the deterrence value so may not be worth it - especially when the BMD systems of our likely adversaries aren't that sophisticated yet and we don't have SSNs to protect our SSBNs.
Hopefully we can afford a significant decoy load after we graduate to at least a 6-MIRV bus with S5s and P77s in the water.
In terms of diameter? How do we know this?
Based on this, not yet fully proven fact, but for a start there is good indication on that.
In June 2023, MIDHANI had produced >2.5 m rings made out of "TiTaN-31" alloy. The TiTaN-31 alloy's formula was produced by DMRL & productionized by MIDHANI. MIDHANI says that these rings were made for space applications.
By "space applications", they probably mean a satellite launch vehicle. This ring will probably be at the interstage of the launch vehicle & will house electronics, guidance, sensors & stage separation equipment.
Right now, India has 2 space launchers under development: NGLV & Veda. As we know now, the NGLV...
By "space applications", they probably mean a satellite launch vehicle. This ring will probably be at the interstage of the launch vehicle & will house electronics, guidance, sensors & stage separation equipment.
Right now, India has 2 space launchers under development: NGLV & Veda. As we know now, the NGLV...
Based on this, not yet fully proven fact, but for a start there is good indication on that.
In June 2023, MIDHANI had produced >2.5 m rings made out of "TiTaN-31" alloy. The TiTaN-31 alloy's formula was produced by DMRL & productionized by MIDHANI. MIDHANI says that these rings were made for space applications.
By "space applications", they probably mean a satellite launch vehicle. This ring will probably be at the interstage of the launch vehicle & will house electronics, guidance, sensors & stage separation equipment.
Right now, India has 2 space launchers under development: NGLV & Veda. As we know now, the NGLV...
Yeah I recall this post now.
It's interesting but it's also possible that VEDA is derived from A6.
Unlike the LRAShM (which seems to use a boost stage with a similar dia as K4), the VEDA is not needed for submarine application (mostly because we can't waste a silo for sat launch) so it's not necessary for it to use SLBM stages, it's free to use larger ICBM stages which would allow it to loft heavier/more payloads into orbit with limited number of launches.
But what you & @Gautam theorized is also possible. We'll see.
K5 is 3500 K.M. Range with 2500 k.g Payload. With lighter payload, it can reach up to 5000 k.m. I think. It seems that India is making its missiles in a way that if needed, they can be fired with conventional payload against high value target like what Russia did. Agni III is also such a missile that is design for high payload medium range. Agni IV is made for longer range strike with medium payload. Agni V's range is understated. K4 is a sort of missile with high payload with short range (Compared to its potential).
Yes the nomenclature is not an issue, they can call whatever they want. It depends on the rocket motors, and even assuming A5 being shortened and made higher dia to create K5, we get a higher dia stage motor that in turn found use in VEDA as a combo of the said 2.4-2.5m dia class booster stages mated with the A5 mirv bus 3rd stage V3C of 2m dia class. So it is of course possible the next Agni iteration land based can be derived from VEDA in future increasing dia further to 2.8m perhaps. They also called VEDA a missile one time.
Either way S5 class if it is launching K5 it will also launch this supposed future version K6 also ie the silo tube is definitely far larger with enough room and the sub is robust to absorb the shock. I expect the Stretched batch of 2 also to be able to handle K5, makes no sense to cripple the subs ability when design is worked for more nos which the mirv'ed k5 is ideal for.
Whether they are willing to make so many iterations on a critical underwater article is another thing. I would like them standardizing on K5 itself, maybe some mk2 version to cater for hgv warhead much like A5 mk2?
In the 1990s, Sagarika which was the umbrella term for the naval missile prog was believed to be developing 2 types of missiles- a BM and CM of 300km range with Russian assistance. This was the assessment of US ONI. However, we now know it was a single hybrid missile that came to be known as K-15 and then B-05.
Instead of a lighter payload, would it not be more convenient to move the sub a bit more ahead before firing it, Sir ? For a land based system this can be useful even though if we consider our country stretches for ~ 3000km on both axis directions. The payload can be anything as Dr Kalam said we can put flowers in it if we want, difference is the interpretation as always, esp if it is done with a strategic system. I have read that we are extra careful due to pak having a first use policy.
As for the payload part, all the missiles are always tested at 1.25 times load rated with a minimum factor of safety of > 5, so essentially for a 1 ton payload rated rocket, we can safely put 1200-1250 kg warhead without even compromising its performance range or flight level characteristics (trajectory, flight altitude, in flight maneuvering, safe stage separation etc). As always the engagement is priority, not the range because the launch of a rocket is flexible affair & depends on battlefield situation. This is even more applicable for some SSBN that launches underwater.
As always any think tank would overstate, and we ourselves do it too. The project was codenamed B-05 from the start, later navy name for it was sagarika / k-15 is the ANSP program overall when the initial technology was established within DRDL and the program got expanded obviously into other futuristic systems. What we obviously miss is the underwater system would also have an identical land vector, hence today we have B-05 and B-05(LV) ie Shourya. This as we heard is now being remade with range extended and codenamed M5. Already had one test last year just like LRAShM first test.
M5 with extended range might be the new ballistic missile for the IRF.
If that image is accurate, then the cell is definitely in the 1.5m class.
The diameter of the missile is 0.74m. 2 missiles at the bottom give a chord length of 1.5m. So yeah 1.7m makes it more accurate.
Which means if K-5 is meant for Arihant, it cannot exceed this size.
Yeah. The timeline for K-5 and S-5 is quite a ways off. I had brought it up, but decided to push it to the side because we would need to develop TDs for development trials, and K-5 can play that part.
A missile does not have to restrict itself to a 1:1 decoy versus the warhead. You can carry many smaller decoys with 1 warhead. I won't be surprised if that's the plan for Arihant. Deploying as many as 24 warheads on S4 seems a bit much at this point, when our ground-based deterrence is much smaller. Our goal for deployed nukes is purely for deterrence.
The idea behind such a small number is the enemy will not waste resources trying to eliminate our subs. 4-8 missiles with an equal number of warheads would make any counterforce strike cost-prohibitive. More resources will be spent on eliminating land-based weapons that present a greater threat so we are assured of a nuclear response.
Once we get the S-5s and P-77s, the rules will change due to the growht of India as a direct challenger. Then we will need 6-10 MIRVs on on 12-16 missiles in 4-6 SSBNs.
Based on this, not yet fully proven fact, but for a start there is good indication on that.
In June 2023, MIDHANI had produced >2.5 m rings made out of "TiTaN-31" alloy. The TiTaN-31 alloy's formula was produced by DMRL & productionized by MIDHANI. MIDHANI says that these rings were made for space applications.
By "space applications", they probably mean a satellite launch vehicle. This ring will probably be at the interstage of the launch vehicle & will house electronics, guidance, sensors & stage separation equipment.
Right now, India has 2 space launchers under development: NGLV & Veda. As we know now, the NGLV...
Titan31 is for our upcoming space station. It's meant for people to go through in space; docking stations, module connectors etc.
We don't have to make missiles or VLS with titanium.
I'm not very sure about using SSBNs for conventional strikes. They fall under the PMO and SFC after all.
Shaurya may have been designed with that in mind, but I'm not sure if the army is going to use it. The SFC controls this missile too.
You need to think in K4 terms first before stepping onto the next version. As of now, the 2 Arihant class subs can fire K4 is proven fact. This should be ok for a Pak centric approach from these 2 subs. Since the silo is to hold the canister and the 3 launcher adapter, it is likely a bit more bigger than 1.5m. So the exact data we will never know. Next is to prove the same capacity on the stretched batch. Then we can move to the next missile version if the designers planned for the same and the missile itself is flight test proven. That is yet to happen.
What may happen though, is that now the 2 subs being proven to fire a 1.4m dia class missile system, these can potentially house the new LR-AShM which has canister size exactly of that dimension. Engaging and targeting a carrier is probably a strategic asset liquidation case ie you can justify a nuke powered sub involvement even if the LRAShM will be with a conventional warhead?
Aerospace application can be termed under dual use, so not necessarily missile body ? plus these are the canister holding end rings most likely, a launcher system application purpose (non single use/expendable I mean). So we can only make guess.
For now, LR-AShM is meant for land-based use, not sub. Neither Arihant nor S-5 are meant for conventional operations. An Mk2 version can enhance that range even more, making it pointless for submarine use.
What's much more likely is potential use in SSNs, like the Yasen's design carrying 8 2-meter cells. 4 Brahmos class missiles or 1 LR-AShM in one cell, that's possible. Maybe even 3 if it's upwards of 2.5 m.
Leasing or buying one or more Yasens is in my wishlist.
I find it very unlikely for our SSBNs to be composed of steel and only use titanium for cells and canisters.
Anyway, Titan31 is meant for our human spaceflight and space station programs. Both are supposed to launch soon. And titanium in a space station, space shuttle and crew capsule makes more sense.