We are more likely to see a RAM coated SLCM/LR-LACM variant like the US Maritime Strike Tomahawk than a VLO CM from DRDO/HAL. The pvt sector may have some surprises in store though.
Project-76 Indigenous Diesel-electric Submarine (SSK) Program
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
We are more likely to see a RAM coated SLCM/LR-LACM variant like the US Maritime Strike Tomahawk than a VLO CM from DRDO/HAL. The pvt sector may have some surprises in store though.
Non magnetic hull is that much nich technology? Does any of our sub have this tech?
We do produce non-magnetic steel, but it has not been certified for submarine hulls. And using non-magnetic steel for submarines has its own trade-off. Non-magnetic steel is relatively softer and has lower tensile strength, which reduces the maximum submarine size to < 2000 tonnes (for reference, Type 212A displaces around 1800 tonnes) without weight penalty and also reduces the maximum diving depth. I don't think IN is drawn towards it. Navies usually periodically demagnetise their hull steel which reduces magnetic signature.
Last edited:
No reason to believe they already don't exist.
Though at some point they'll feel the need of a VLO cruise missile that can be carried flush under AMCA wings. Though such an undertaking will have to come from ADE/RCI.
This is also relevant for SLCM purposes as it requires highest possible Kp, as you already have a limited magazine depth and it takes a while for a sub to replenish its armaments and return to station
Got the answer from AI.
Now realized that it's better to build a 200MWth reactor for 10,000 tonnes SS(G)N, 35MWe will provide enough power to even move a 10,000 submarine like crazy.
From AI(Indus):
"
Now the key point: reactor cost does NOT come down in proportion to power.
This is the most important thing to understand, and it's why small reactors are actually a bad deal per unit of power.
Nuclear capital costs scale with a power-law "six-tenths rule" — cost is roughly proportional to capacity raised to the power ~0.6, not 1.0 .
The practical consequence: a 200 MW reactor costs only about 40% of a 1,000 MW reactor, even though it makes just 20% of the power — i.e. roughly double the cost per megawatt.
The reason is that a large share of reactor cost is fixed and doesn't shrink with output: the pressure vessel, shielding, primary coolant loop, instrumentation and control, the nuclear-qualified workforce, and the enormous testing/qualification and regulatory overhead. This "diseconomy of scale" is well documented for small modular reactors.
"
The exact formula is closely guarded by the oem for obvious reasons. You will not find any open source info on it. In fact, 212CD also uses composites in its outer hull afaik so it is not of an all-steel construction either.
The IN is reportedly already considering the Scalp naval w/800km range for Scorpene Batch 2. The least DRDO can do is to add a nose chine to the existing SLCM/LR-LACM ( a la Tomahawk Block 4) to reduce head on rcs, imo.
Designing a proper VLO version (like the Japanese Type 12) of LR-LACM could take some time.
We've already tested the SLCM; there's no way we'll request a new missile at exorbitant prices.
There is a RfP out currently for sub launched LACM.
Russia is dangling Kalibr-PL to push 3 used Kilo hulls down our throats. France is offering Scalp Naval which I'd say has a better chance since the IN existing Kilo boats wouldn't be compatible and they are on their last legs anyway.
Iirc, Shishir Gupta put out a report about it recently.
If Scalp does get acquired, it could be easily retrofitted to in service Kalvari boats in due course.
If Scalp does get acquired, it could be easily retrofitted to in service Kalvari boats in due course.
I looked into it. Its a RFI, that doesnt mean anything without AoN. They are probably assessing the market.
If we order Scorpene Batch 2 today its 6-7 years away. You dont order missiles for it today.
If we can integrate Klub-S 3M-54E(supersonic terminal dash) with our kalvari them it will be great.
We are MTCR member so we can get longer range.
Cost may be high, but then we don't need to only use them, we can use Klub-S and DRDO's SLCM in mix.
Buying even 50 of those will suffice our need.
We are MTCR member so we can get longer range.
Cost may be high, but then we don't need to only use them, we can use Klub-S and DRDO's SLCM in mix.
Buying even 50 of those will suffice our need.
Mix and match is not possible between Russian and Western naval weapons as they require combat system integration. Or we wouldn't have had Exocet, Harpoon and Klub-S on 3 lines of SSKs.
Hi sorry for late reply,
Firstly, the 041 is an entirely different thing compared to a "small SSN". The reactor doesn't directly power 041's propulsion unlike on an SSN, it just feeds the batteries, just like how on an SSK you have a diesel engine feeding the batteries or an SSP where you augment that with a stirling engine or fuel cells to feed the batteries.
Secondly, we don't really know for sure what the goal with 041 is. For all we know, it's just an experimental boat to prove an ANPP type powerplant (perhaps meant for a large UUV or something) and won't see operational service itself. Chinese are pumping out a lot of one-off experimental boats these days.
Another possibility is for export to client states (like Pakistan) who might not be cleared to operate a full-fledged SSN for security reasons (we already know the Pakistanis requested China for an SSB/SSBN capability and it was apparently refused for unknown reasons).
Either way, the most important thing to remember is that this hybrid propulsion concept (mini reactor used to charge batteries instead of actually driving the boat directly) is not and cannot create an "SSN-", at best it creates an "SSP+" because it's essentially a 'Super AIP'.
The reactor drip-feeds the batteries, it will not contribute to increased performance or ability to chase down & kill surface ships like an SSN can. What it does is mostly confined to extending the time the boat can stay underwater. Perhaps to near-indefinite periods (barring other supplies, of course, just like real N-subs).
This is an entirely different argument (and technology) compared to a smallish submarine with a smaller reactor that still directly drives the boat. Like for example the French Rubis-class SSN (2500t, 48 MWth reactor). In the deep seas, a boat like Rubis is a much bigger threat than any 041 can ever be.
The economic aspects you already covered with your AI question.
Sub launched LACM is a very niche market with just 2-3 possible options with the third being the Tomahawk.
If the IN is indeed considering a stopgap strike option for Kalvari/follow-ons, Scalp Naval is the only realistic choice, imo.