Analysis Some thoughts on the future of Indian nuclear forces...

[Parthu]

Keeping in mind the fact that the S-5 class SSBN will probably have 12 missile tubes storing K-5 or K-6 intercontinental SLBMs (which will most definitely have Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles or MIRVs)....each S-5 boat, even if we assume a relatively modest MIRV capacity of 3 RVs per missile, would be carrying 36 nuclear warheads. Three such boats, if we assume each has it's own permanently assigned load of missiles, would require 108 warheads. If we're talking four boats (following the UK & France pattern of SSBN numbers) that goes to 144 warheads. That's close to the total stockpile that most experts assume India to have currently (~150 warheads).

If we assume 4 MIRVs per SLBM (like the slide I've shown below, shown by DRDO's then-chairman Dr. VK Saraswat at IIT-Bombay university) then it would be 48 warheads per sub, and 144 for Three boats and 192 for Four boats. With a quoted throwaway weight of 2 tons, likelihood is high for there to be indeed 4 x 500kg MIRVs per K-5/K-6.

Note that I'm discounting the Arihant-class as I firmly believe they'll be retired as SSBNs as relegated to a less demanding role (like conventionally-armed SSGN) once a corresponding S-5 SSBN comes online.

However - it must be remembered that India, with two nuclear-armed hostile neighbours who share land borders, certainly has no plans of giving up it's land-based rail & road-mobile nuclear deterrent like UK & France have done. This portion of the triad will continue to be armed in the form of Agni-4, Agni-5 and the in-development Agni-6 with MIRVs (plus whatever Agni-1P derived MRBM replaces Agni-1/2). The Agni-6 is reportedly designed to have a throw weight of 3 tons, so we're again looking at a significant MIRV payload (again, refer to the slide I've linked below, from same source at IIT-Bombay presentation).

Even with an extremely conservative number of only 24 Agni-6 missiles, we'll need 96 warheads for them alone. And that's just the China-focused deterrent. Our Pakistani neighbours will be having their own serving with NG-MRBM (A-1P descendent) and even if we assume only unitary warheads, that's another 12-24 right there, making up about 100-120 warheads for the Land leg of triad.

And we won't be giving up the Air-launched deterrent either (like UK has done), the presence of nuclear gravity bombs as well as the possible development of a nuclear-capable Liquid-Fuel Ramjet (LFRJ) ALCM intended for the Indian Rafales (very similar to the French ASMP-A missile) indicate that this leg of the triad is here to stay as well.

Make that another 12-24 nukes for the Air triad...and add a handful of reserves.

We're looking at a need of about:

144-192
108-120
12-24
~10

...Between approx 274 to 346 warheads for the foreseeable future.

The delays of Plutonium deliveries to the PFBR prototype reactor also point at the possibility of the Pu going to fill other, more pressing & strategically important requirements, like perhaps building more bombs.

Thoughts?

@Ashwin @Milspec @randomradio @Gautam @suryakiran @BMD @Picdelamirand-oil

 

[Gautam]

That's close to the total stockpile that most experts assume India to have currently (~150 warheads).

That is a dated assumption isn't it ? The suspected number of warheads has remained almost the same for about a decade. In the last few years multiple large capacity enrichment facilities have come up, at least a couple of large Uranium/Plutonium mines have been operationalized. BARC has been generating (through LPCE D2O transmutation) & stockpiling large quantities of Tritium for at least 2 decades. We have a number of Uranium supply deals with a dozen countries now for civilian reactors, leaving almost our entire domestic reserves to be used for strategic applications.

If you recall there was much noise in the Pakistani media about a new "nuclear city" coming up in Challakere. Some Pakistani scholar calculated that India had enough Uranium/Plutonium to make thousands of warheads. The article was clearly meant to be alarmist so take it with a lump of salt. Warhead number calculations were done using Indian fission & boosted fission designs from late 80s & early 90s. Look at the improvements in our nuclear delivery platforms from the 80s. There is no reason to believe that warhead design hasn't improved for 4 decades.

I believe it was an American think tank that came up with the 120 number in the early 2000s, now the assumed number is 150. So we have added 30 warheads in 2 decades. We've more than doubled our enrichment capacity just so we could produce 1.5 warheads/year. Come on man.

Note that I'm discounting the Arihant-class as I firmly believe they'll be retired as SSBNs as relegated to a less demanding role (like conventionally-armed SSGN) once a corresponding S-5 SSBN comes online.

Converting the Arihant to a SSGN could be challenging. SSGNs normally have a higher cruise speeds than SSBNs. The 83 MWe CLWR-B1 might not be able to pump out enough power for it. Even if the reactor can it will have reduced service life. But I agree, the Arihant class is unlikely to continue as SSBNs when the S-5s arrive.

We're looking at a need of about:

144-192
108-120
12-24
~10

...Between approx 274 to 346 warheads for the foreseeable future.

I believe we already have 300+ warheads.

If from the late 80s to the early 2000s we had made ~120 warheads, given the increase in mining/enrichment infra it stands to reason that we should have more than double that number by 2020. The deployment of the Shaurya missiles by the SFC indicates the presence of tactical nukes in our inventory. It was done during the peak of Ladakh standoff. The Shaurya can carry a 200 kg warhead, which should mean we have a 200 kg tactical nuke.

Tactical nukes take smaller amounts of fissile materials to build & can be built quicker. This is why I believe the 300+ number is realistic.

The delays of Plutonium deliveries to the PFBR prototype reactor also point at the possibility of the Pu going to fill other, more pressing & strategically important requirements, like perhaps building more bombs.

Its not just the PFBR. Most research reactors projects that need Plutonium have been delayed, most notably the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). Others like the Indian Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (IMSBR), Indian Accelerator Driven Systems (IADS) & Compact High Temperature Reactor (CHTR) have also suffered delays.

 

[randomradio]

I honestly believe our mobile land-based strategic deterrent will slowly go down in favour of sea based deterrence and silos. We may only end up using MRBMs for mobile land use while switching to silos and subs for IRBMs/ICBMs, maybe not even that. Otoh, our air delivery mechanisms may see a lot of improvement. The biggest drawback for our mobile land-based systems is the time it takes to mate the warhead to the delivery system. But with silos and subs, the decision to launch can take minutes, while air delivery is only a few hours away, rather than days. So I don't even see any use of our mobile component. We have a need to be much more pro-active in our deterrence if we are to match the Chinese buildup.

As for the Arihant class, while the first two subs can be converted to SSGNs during MLUs, and performance can be catered to by going fully electric, the S4 and S4* should continue to provide deterrence throughout their service lives. So we will have 5 subs for deterrence with a minimum of 54 VLS among them.

There's no point in speculating the number of active warheads we possess. I won't be surprised if our air-drop capable warheads are in greater numbers than warheads attached to BMs.

 

[Parthu]

That is a dated assumption isn't it ? The suspected number of warheads has remained almost the same for about a decade. In the last few years multiple large capacity enrichment facilities have come up, at least a couple of large Uranium/Plutonium mines have been operationalized. BARC has been generating (through LPCE D2O transmutation) & stockpiling large quantities of Tritium for at least 2 decades. We have a number of Uranium supply deals with a dozen countries now for civilian reactors, leaving almost our entire domestic reserves to be used for strategic applications.

If you recall there was much noise in the Pakistani media about a new "nuclear city" coming up in Challakere. Some Pakistani scholar calculated that India had enough Uranium/Plutonium to make thousands of warheads. The article was clearly meant to be alarmist so take it with a lump of salt. Warhead number calculations were done using Indian fission & boosted fission designs from late 80s & early 90s. Look at the improvements in our nuclear delivery platforms from the 80s. There is no reason to believe that warhead design hasn't improved for 4 decades.

I believe it was an American think tank that came up with the 120 number in the early 2000s, now the assumed number is 150. So we have added 30 warheads in 2 decades. We've more than doubled our enrichment capacity just so we could produce 1.5 warheads/year. Come on man.


Converting the Arihant to a SSGN could be challenging. SSGNs normally have a higher cruise speeds than SSBNs. The 83 MWe CLWR-B1 might not be able to pump out enough power for it. Even if the reactor can it will have reduced service life. But I agree, the Arihant class is unlikely to continue as SSBNs when the S-5s arrive.


I believe we already have 300+ warheads.

If from the late 80s to the early 2000s we had made ~120 warheads, given the increase in mining/enrichment infra it stands to reason that we should have more than double that number by 2020. The deployment of the Shaurya missiles by the SFC indicates the presence of tactical nukes in our inventory. It was done during the peak of Ladakh standoff. The Shaurya can carry a 200 kg warhead, which should mean we have a 200 kg tactical nuke.

Tactical nukes take smaller amounts of fissile materials to build & can be built quicker. This is why I believe the 300+ number is realistic.


Its not just the PFBR. Most research reactors projects that need Plutonium have been delayed, most notably the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). Others like the Indian Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (IMSBR), Indian Accelerator Driven Systems (IADS) & Compact High Temperature Reactor (CHTR) have also suffered delays.

I honestly believe our mobile land-based strategic deterrent will slowly go down in favour of sea based deterrence and silos. We may only end up using MRBMs for mobile land use while switching to silos and subs for IRBMs/ICBMs, maybe not even that. Otoh, our air delivery mechanisms may see a lot of improvement. The biggest drawback for our mobile land-based systems is the time it takes to mate the warhead to the delivery system. But with silos and subs, the decision to launch can take minutes, while air delivery is only a few hours away, rather than days. So I don't even see any use of our mobile component. We have a need to be much more pro-active in our deterrence if we are to match the Chinese buildup.

As for the Arihant class, while the first two subs can be converted to SSGNs during MLUs, and performance can be catered to by going fully electric, the S4 and S4* should continue to provide deterrence throughout their service lives. So we will have 5 subs for deterrence with a minimum of 54 VLS among them.

There's no point in speculating the number of active warheads we possess. I won't be surprised if our air-drop capable warheads are in greater numbers than warheads attached to BMs.

No, not trying to speculate on number of warheads (or the potential to build), but about the approximate number of active deployment requirement.

 

[randomradio]

No, not trying to speculate on number of warheads (or the potential to build), but about the approximate number of active deployment requirement.

Frankly, if we want to play with the big boys, we are going to need to be at their level.

52 VLS in the water and an equal number in silos won't be enough.