Indian Nuclear Attack Submarine (Project 77) - Updates & Discussions

_Anonymous_ said:
SBC will be undertaking both projects - SSN as well as S5? In which case what about news that the hulls of S2 & other Arihant class Subs were fabricated at L&T Hazira? I would've thought L&T ought to be more closely involved in at least production of the SSNs.
Click to expand...
Gautam said:
I think hulls get shipped from Hazira after completion. Just a guess though.
Click to expand...

Perhaps L&T Hazira is not involved with the project at all? Perhaps a different division of L&T is contracted to perform the project under the supervision of IN at SBC? Perhaps as early as 2010, P24 (the twin) was already assembled and awaiting its heart and P26 (the big sister) under final stages of fabrication?

Alot of questions that we don't have answers for. But one definite answer to several questions here is that the SSN project will not be executed by any shipyards (Private or Public). Unless of course you want to call SBC a shipyard, which it isn't. Why SBC and not any other shipyard you may ask? The very reason that 20+ years later and people are still unable to say for sure who is building our Boomer fleet :)

Good Day!
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Chain Smoker, RISING SUN, Gautam and 3 others
R!cK said:
Perhaps L&T Hazira is not involved with the project at all? Perhaps a different division of L&T is contracted to perform the project under the supervision of IN at SBC? Perhaps as early as 2010, P24 (the twin) was already assembled and awaiting its heart and P26 (the big sister) under final stages of fabrication?

Alot of questions that we don't have answers for. But one definite answer to several questions here is that the SSN project will not be executed by any shipyards (Private or Public). Unless of course you want to call SBC a shipyard, which it isn't. Why SBC and not any other shipyard you may ask? The very reason that 20+ years later and people are still unable to say for sure who is building our Boomer fleet :)

Good Day!
Click to expand...
There's no clarity on who's making what. Your post itself while partly informative is also cryptic in ways that only @Falcon can appreciate. Perhaps you ought to elaborate.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
There's no clarity on who's making what. Your post itself while partly informative is also cryptic in ways that only @Falcon can appreciate. Perhaps you ought to elaborate.
Click to expand...

Apologies, some Qs are answered here but somewhere else and some are not to be told. Lets not use names but 2 divisions of L&T are responsible for the project, one major and the other minor. None of them bear the names L&T Shipyard. The project is controlled by IN with weekly audits and sign off required for each of the 15 sections before they turn into 3 blocks.

The reason why we have lack of clarity regarding the whole project is because that's exactly what was intended. Easy trick, don't believe reports you have found online so far. Not PKS, not Livefist, not Sandeep. In all honesty, the project was already in advanced stages way back in 2010 while snippets have come out only in the last few years. For all the goof ups UPA made in defence, this one project was pretty much immune. Infact we had acquired serious skills in hull fabrication in the last decade itself, our real issue has always been with getting its heart to work the way it should. Lets hope its sorted out now :)
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Gautam, Paro and 1 other person
R!cK said:
Apologies, some Qs are answered here but somewhere else and some are not to be told. Lets not use names but 2 divisions of L&T are responsible for the project, one major and the other minor. None of them bear the names L&T Shipyard. The project is controlled by IN with weekly audits and sign off required for each of the 15 sections before they turn into 3 blocks.

The reason why we have lack of clarity regarding the whole project is because that's exactly what was intended. Easy trick, don't believe reports you have found online so far. Not PKS, not Livefist, not Sandeep. In all honesty, the project was already in advanced stages way back in 2010 while snippets have come out only in the last few years. For all the goof ups UPA made in defence, this one project was pretty much immune. Infact we had acquired serious skills in hull fabrication in the last decade itself, our real issue has always been with getting its heart to work the way it should. Lets hope its sorted out now :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarity. I would imagine they'd require a new class of PWR's for both the SSN & the S-5 class. Going forward if the IAC -2 or IAC -3 would be N powered, I assume it'd be multiples of the type of PWR that powers the SSN. How true is this assumption? What's the MWe that we're looking at? And assuming we've already begun work on the hulls of the SSN is it safe to assume, we've perfected the design of the said PWR or like last time as in the case of the Arihant & it's sister boats, the fabricated hull lies in the water while the PWR is still undergoing development. Finally, I hope we've finally acquired some if not a great deal of expertise in design & manufacturing of PWRs for that would only leave pumpjet propulsion out our basket of technologies to be achieved then.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Thanks for the clarity. I would imagine they'd require a new class of PWR's for both the SSN & the S-5 class. Going forward if the IAC -2 or IAC -3 would be N powered, I assume it'd be multiples of the type of PWR that powers the SSN. How true is this assumption? What's the MWe that we're looking at? And assuming we've already begun work on the hulls of the SSN is it safe to assume, we've perfected the design of the said PWR or like last time as in the case of the Arihant & it's sister boats, the fabricated hull lies in the water while the PWR is still undergoing development. Finally, I hope we've finally acquired some if not a great deal of expertise in design & manufacturing of PWRs for that would only leave pumpjet propulsion out our basket of technologies to be achieved then.
Click to expand...

We have come a long way this decade but to reach the finish mark, we need friends and we probably have it already. So a little more wait along the way. And yes the perfect heart is not ready yet and when it is, it may not have to be just limited to underwater. However, the need for one is perhaps very distant? We have a problem in this country, we disregard operational cost and only care about acquisition cost. We'd happily spend 5 + 10 Billion USD ( Acquisition + Operational over lifetime) instead of 7 + 5 Billion USD for a better platform. It's also the reason why Russians have mastered doing business with India. In all honesty, we might not see a nuclear reactor on a surface platform in the next 2 decades. But if we ever decide to, we may have a solution ready for it in the not so distant future. So the decision to host one on the surface is probably not due to limitation in capability but purely financial.

Mwe? questionable numbers will have to be put out, just know that the twin was waiting for some minor refinements while the big sister knew she'd have to wait a long time. But hey, a decade has passed since then and she is probably not waiting anymore? The problem with a fairly new design is that you spend more time making amends than building the real thing. And the changes have to be applied to not just one but perhaps a couple or more units. Similar issues might creep in once the SSN project takes off, but be glad we already had a stepping stone. Here on out, it's easier than it ever used to be.

Probably good time to wind up the topic before I blabber more nonsense.

Good Day!
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Gautam, Paro and 1 other person
R!cK said:
We have come a long way this decade but to reach the finish mark, we need friends and we probably have it already. So a little more wait along the way. And yes the perfect heart is not ready yet and when it is, it may not have to be just limited to underwater. However, the need for one is perhaps very distant? We have a problem in this country, we disregard operational cost and only care about acquisition cost. We'd happily spend 5 + 10 Billion USD ( Acquisition + Operational over lifetime) instead of 7 + 5 Billion USD for a better platform. It's also the reason why Russians have mastered doing business with India. In all honesty, we might not see a nuclear reactor on a surface platform in the next 2 decades. But if we ever decide to, we may have a solution ready for it in the not so distant future. So the decision to host one on the surface is probably not due to limitation in capability but purely financial.

Mwe? questionable numbers will have to be put out, just know that the twin was waiting for some minor refinements while the big sister knew she'd have to wait a long time. But hey, a decade has passed since then and she is probably not waiting anymore? The problem with a fairly new design is that you spend more time making amends than building the real thing. And the changes have to be applied to not just one but perhaps a couple or more units. Similar issues might creep in once the SSN project takes off, but be glad we already had a stepping stone. Here on out, it's easier than it ever used to be.

Probably good time to wind up the topic before I blabber more nonsense.

Good Day!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. Any more of it is definitely welcome given the paucity of info on this matter. MWe = MW ( electrcity) ; MWt = MW ( thermal)
 
_Anonymous_ said:
MWe = MW ( electrcity) ; MWt = MW ( thermal)
Click to expand...

lol I know what MWe stands for, I meant I'm not one to give numbers. Lead boat specs are not exactly national secret for now, consider minor improvements for the twin and significant improvements for the big sister. Minor improvements weren't hard to achieve, but significant improvements had to come at the cost of time. Did we get there yet? Maybe. Do we still have room for improvement? Definitely, that's what true friends are for I suppose.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Paro and _Anonymous_
R!cK said:
lol I know what MWe stands for, I meant I'm not one to give numbers. Lead boat specs are not exactly national secret for now, consider minor improvements for the twin and significant improvements for the big sister. Minor improvements weren't hard to achieve, but significant improvements had to come at the cost of time. Did we get there yet? Maybe. Do we still have room for improvement? Definitely, that's what true friends are for I suppose.
Click to expand...
I was actually asking if the S-5 & the SSNs get the same PWR. You seem to be referring to the S-2, S-3 & it's follow ons the S-4 & S-4* . Unless you're suggesting that what goes into the latter 2 also goes into the S-5 & the SSNs. I was asking for an indicative MWe. Not the precise figure. A bandwidth is also welcome.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
I was actually asking if the S-5 & the SSNs get the same PWR. You seem to be referring to the S-2, S-3 & it's follow ons the S-4 & S-4* . Unless you're suggesting that what goes into the latter 2 also goes into the S-5 & the SSNs. I was asking for an indicative MWe. Not the precise figure. A bandwidth is also welcome.
Click to expand...
S5 reactor is not finalized yet. But the S4 and S4* ships will have a significantly improved one. We can expect to see the same on SSNs.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK
Ankit Kumar said:
S5 reactor is not finalized yet. But the S4 and S4* ships will have a significantly improved one. We can expect to see the same on SSNs.
Click to expand...
Any idea of the bandwidths of the output in MWe of the PWRs of the S-4 / S-4* / SSN? And what would it be for the S-5 class?
 
Aniruddha said:
The OK-650 190 MW PWR reactor should suffice to both our S5 and SSN projects.
Click to expand...
A 190 MW reactor would mean our SSN would be fast and would also enable our SSBN to do 30 knots underwater as compared to 24 knots underwater which the current Arihant class does.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Any idea of the bandwidths of the output in MWe of the PWRs of the S-4 / S-4* / SSN? And what would it be for the S-5 class?
Click to expand...

Someone already answered part of it for you here. Regarding numbers, let's say our friends didnt offer us a huge platter to choose from. So we will end up using technology from an older version of a reactor we are already familiar with. Something we are going to be operating for the next decade and half anyway. Unfair to expect friends to share their crowned jewel, its business end of the day.

For all the talk about S5, where is the AMCA now?Long way to go. For whenever it's ready, perhaps we don't have to keep improving the heart. Won't be the first time a beast under water has two hearts beating. :unsure:

Good Day!
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Aniruddha, Chain Smoker, Bali78 and 3 others
Aniruddha said:
A 190 MW reactor would mean our SSN would be fast and would also enable our SSBN to do 30 knots underwater as compared to 24 knots underwater which the current Arihant class does.
Click to expand...
The new french SSN is powered by a 150MW reactor. 190MW seems nice for a SSN, and even for a SLBM which will only need full speed maybe one time in his life, just before to be destroyed (a SLBM cruise speed is in the 5knots. More means it began to be noisy. If it needs to cruise faster, that means it has already losed the game)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aniruddha
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom