There are plenty of targets within the missile's range in China. It's designed to be use against Pak and China, not the US or other imagined enemies.
Nope. It's an SSBN meant for launching strategic nukes.
Beating the Indian Navy without going broke
- Thread starter Star Wars
- Start date
There are plenty of targets within the missile's range in China. It's designed to be use against Pak and China, not the US or other imagined enemies.
Nope. It's an SSBN meant for launching strategic nukes.
Why assume that any other enemy is imagined? The time required to change threat perception is much less than time required to change equipments. Eve fr Chia, From where Arihant will launch missile to CHina? Important targets in China is at least 3000km from Bay of Bengal. How will that be targeted?
What is the height of sagarika/Shaurya? And its radius? That will show its capability. It is not possible to reduce size beyond a point for 3000km range. Also, testing has to be done for at least 50% of range to get a glimpse of the working of the missile. Sagarika is said to be a maneuverable missile which also means that it is not a high flying ballistic missile as maneuvering requires air (aerodynamics won't work without air) and hence stay within atmosphere level, unlike IRBM/ICBM
I understand you have mixed feelings about these things. 1) nuclear doctrine 2) Arihant 3) Sagarika
Nuclear deterrence is more about perception than numbers, and as long as the other side perceives a survivable nuclear capability, deterrence will hold. Indian nuclear weapons are primarily against China. They are the first one to introduce the no-first-use(NFU) policy. Why is that? Do you think they are a peace-loving nation? No. But to reduce the risks of nuclear war (or any direct conflict for that matter) by giving a high degree of deterrence against the adversary. CCP understood the role of nukes to keep the peace (ironically).
The NFU depends on the fact that If any of the nuclear stockpiles survives the 'first strike' then it will become a mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario. In the case of india-pak, even a single strike on indian soil will annihilate the pakistani state as we know it (But we might survive). Thus logically, We are assuming 'first strike' won't happen because the other person is not that stupid.
Your above post says land launched ballistic missiles can be anywhere hidden. Then what is the point of 'First strike'? We will take heavy casualties when they strike back. afterward, even if we win, at least a third of the population will be agony. It will take a lifetime for the nation to get back to a state anything compared to where we were. This is not a video game to send 'thousands of ballistic missiles' and expect to be safe.
There is a perception that with new space-based sensors and air domination it is possible to neutralize all land-based TELs (Anti-ballistic missiles taking care of the few missed ones). Submarine based deterrence is to give full confidence to the adversary that there will be missiles lefts in the oceans even after we get annihilated. Thus, with the rapid weakening of the balance of power in the subcontinent, explains the eagerness of Pakistan to demonstrate their sub launch capability.
The triad (Air-Sea-Land) will help to keep the deterrence at the maximum. You are right about Sagarika not able to strike China because it is a stopgap missile till our K-4/5 matures and bigger SSBNs emerges. Against China even our land-based deterrence is not at its fullest at the moment (It will require MIRV Agni-6.) You cant expect sea-based to go full before that (K-5 MIRV).
Sagarika gives us two things, activation of triad against pakistan and experience gain towards full SLBM capability against china. Pakistani coastline is very short, thus their navy is small and concentrates on defense. After 300km, they can't do much to threaten Indian presence. So, 700km is more than good enough for pakistan.
Global perception is another part, There no moral reasoning to do a nuclear first strike. Even after if we survive, How will you justify killing millions and starting a nuclear war (only the second time in history) ? How will you justify polluting the whole earth? (Every human will bear the cost aren't they?)
Now, Arihant is a pure SSBN design evident from the hump and the choice of the reactor. Tonnage is not the differentiator of the two types. We chose to develop SSBN first because we felt the need for credible deterrence more than the urge to rule the Indian ocean (obviously!).
Would recommend essays of K. Subrahmanyam (First head National Security Advisory Board) or this talk by Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar (Rt. Stratagic Force Commander):
China was threatened by USA of nuclear strike in Korea war and hence China decided to go nuclear. China is not aiming at India nor has it threatened India with any nuclear strikes. China is not a bunch of jihadis
The NFU is just a gimmick. The missile launch can be detected by radar and retaliation can be immediate. There is o need to wait and watch whether the missile in a nuke or not.
By the way, nuclear bombs will not destroy everything, not eve complete Pakistan. Complete genocide will require massive ground level action, aerial bombing, logistical warfare etc. Nuclear bombs are big bombs but not all powerful taht entire countries can be destroyed. 500 nuclear tests were made in USA and not even 1 person died because of tehse OPEN ATMOSPHERE tests. It is bogus that MAD is caused by nukes.
MAD is caused due to large quantity of production available due to industrialisation. For example, India makes 50 lakh cars and commercial vehicles annually. This level of production when channeled to military, will produce massive quantity of equipment and can be used to wage MAD war. Nukes alone are not deciding here. Otherwise, there would be no reason to make planes, helicopters etc. Just throw nukes and war ends.
The incoming missile can be detected at least 10 minutes before they come as launch ca be detected. It is not true that 40 crore will be hit just by nukes of Pakistan. One single nuke of 200kt used as warhead can destroy about 4-5sqkm. Even cities like Delhi has 12000 people per sqkm. So, 5sq km will be just 60000 people. Think again before exaggerating the strength of nukes. The nukes are only the first wave. The war if started will take years to end. Mere missile strike is insufficient.
Pakista does ot have submarine missiles but India does. Also, as I said, missiles can be detected at launch and there is at least 10 minutes time to fire back instead waiting to be destroyed. Essentially, entire concept of surprise first strike is null and void due to radars. This is true for both India ad Pakistan
Earth will not be polluted as seen in 1000 tests of USA- Russia, - UK, - France - China etc done in atmosphere. Also, killing people who want to kill you, even if it is in billions is justified. There is no need to show special consideration to international community. The international community is nothing but the western whining countries. Killing enemies is always justified except to those who are on the enemy side.
Hump means that there is space for missile. But how does it mean that it can't be used to hunt enemy ships and submarines too? The reactor is Akula submarine is also PWR reactor ad there is nothing special about Indian reactor that prevents it from being used for attack. It can have dual role. Ruling Indian ocean is more important that getting few missiles in the sea as I said above about the futility of first strike. Why first strike is useless:
1) The launch can be detected by radars. The missile can also be detected while flying in the sky by radars
2) The missiles are stored in silos underground or in TEL which is mobile
3) Impossible for any strike to penetrate 10 feet underground and take out the silos as the enemy missile is not having penetration warhead.
4) The radar detecting a missile flying towards India will give the ballistic trajectory and eve tel where the missile will land which means the silos in that area can be asked to launch immediately before the first strike hits
5) Missile silos hidden under mountains is impossible to be hit by first strike. Since the number and area of such mountains are large in India, India ca store thousands of missiles under mountains whereas the 20-30 missiles of submarines will mean very little.
If you wish to go by wiki, be my guest. The ATV project was launched much before in the 80s. It is only in the late 80s and early 90s, once we had confirmed BM capablities that design thinking of a SSBN actually started.
But if you had instead spent time reading you would have read this line in the reference of the line marked by you
Since 1971 Indian scientists have been trying to produce a compact nuclear powerplant (reactor) suitable for use in a submarine. That desire was complemented by a plan for uranium enrichment facilities employing centrifuge technology.
In 1970s, there was also a spy case of attempt to sabotage nuclear submarine project. I know that ATV was from 1970s itself. But what I am saying is that the SSN was changed to SSBN after 1998. In fact, Indian ballistic missile was not ready till 1990s. The Agni missile had got only 1 test in 1988 but nothing more after that. So, how can India be sure of having a ballistic missile in 1980s with just 1 test? Prithvi is ruled out as it is liquid fueled and hence not used for long storage in SSBN.
What rubbish. The Prithvi was inducted in 1994. By 1988, we knew what we were doing and where we were going with the Prithvi and Agni series. My dad was part of both programs, so please don't give me your 'gyan' on this.
Post the first tests of Prithvi, the IN was already aware of what it wanted, which was communicated to the DRDO. Now you are free to believe that SSBN is a post 1998 program. What I think you will find is that 1998 is an important milestone. But not the one you believe it to be. It was only in 1998, that we officially acknowledged that such a program existed.
Think about it, if you say 1998 is the date where we changed to an SSBN, then we designed and got it up for running in under 10 years. For the first time, we designed, fabricated and built our 1st SSBN in 10 years.
Anyways, let's proceed.
I once saw a video of a erst-while soviet nuclear-sub being dismantled. They mentioned the upper coating to be a thick rubbery resin of sorts made out of highly classified material and not metal. This was to suppress noise incase the boat starts cavitation and bubbles blow up on the surface of the sub. I highly doubt that the top surface of the sub is metal, it does not make sense from an acoustic perspective. What you are seeing is some kind of resin for noise reduction. How a resin behaves or looks is something which is hard to understand unless you know more about resin's composition.
I doubt this resin will transmit all of the pressure to the metallic hull for it to deform. Most likely, the resin cures with those deformities. May be Indian technology of making such resin is not perfect or may be the imperfection in resin itself has no bearing on quietening abilities. It is hard to tell.
Or, may be the picture was taken before the resin tiles themselves were attached. The hull was floated tested out and resin tiles might be applied in the end.
Last edited:
Well, Pakistan will be fighting India in their territorial waters alright. It just happens that they are also near India's territorial waters. That said, an asymmetric war is seldom won due to 'more innovative technology' but the way the war is fought. This article misses that point completely. There is not going to an equipment or far fighting technology that will be Pakistan only or exclusive to Pakistan anymore. What can be the deciding factor is how do Pakistani commanders fight using those equipment.
It may not be in that picture. I've no knowledge of that photo's date or the age of the submarine in it. However, I do know that submarines sometimes just get like that. I've been on Norwegian Navy Ula class submarines, their towers get warped over time, especially when operating in colder waters where their coatings constrict and crack.
The rubbers used for coating and the metal the submarine's made of expand and contract in certain conditions. Even during extensive use a submarine's not always going to look as worn as S303 above if operated in alternate climates.
And for most submarines, it's largely their towers that get the bulk of the warping, with the main structure being less susceptible to changes, but not always. This is the same submarine as in the first picture, showing an up-close view of its tower's coating. Each section of coating is cracked and wrinkled, and if in a cold environment (like deep sea or a climate controlled bunker) would shrink and warp.
I'd wager that S303 would look very different if viewed from a submarine rescue vehicle while bottomed in the North Sea.
And often it's just camera or lighting trickery. Here's two shots of S303 on the same day and just minutes apart.
Pretty different look. I think that in that photo of Arihant it's a combination of lighting, take it from a seasoned photog (as in most of the pics I post were taken by mean) that picture sucks, and usage. I doubt at that point Arihant was a new sub. It likely had time at sea under its belt.
Just my two krone. I'm well versed in sub-surface warfare and photography, but submarine construction isn't quite my forte.
They're not. Modern submarines are coated with more rubber then Batman. Ok, it's not always rubber uniformly, but what kind of coating is used where rubber isn't is exactly the kind of thing I wont tell you because I'm mean
.
Funny story; during blue-on-blue NATO exercises the Norwegian Navy's Ula-class submarines have been DQ'd on numerous occasions for sinking too many enemy ships and submarines too quickly, creating an unfair training scenario for allied vessels
.
Last edited:
Both the SLBM and IRBM are based on the R-27, of which both JL-1 and DF-21 are as well. I'm not sure if the connection to China's JL-1 has been established or if the lineage is purely Russian, which given the movements of Russian missile engineers in the 90s following the Soviet collapse, is more probable in my eyes then Chinese involvement.
R-27 and R-27K.
JL-1
DF-21
Chinese ASAT program SC-19 (not to be confused with the Minuteman II first stage by the same name) is also a R-27/JL-1/DF-21 derivative.
Last edited:
