Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
    India has developed a nuclear powered submarine from its ATV project.
    Interesting. I find this curious. My understanding was that the reactors on the Soviet subs were still ran by Soviet engineers, that was part of the lease agreement. I am not familiar with the ATV project. Did the soviets help them design and build these propulsion reactors? If not where did the Indians get the real world experience?

    Comment


    • India's ATV - Global Security
      Arihant class submarine
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The above sources should be of interest to you then, can't vouch for their accuracy though!

      The wiki entry says:

      Real world experiance in running and maintaining a nuclear submarine:

      The Arihant class submarines are reported to be comparable to the Charlie II class submarines, which India leased from the Soviet Union between 1988 and 1991. Their crew will have the opportunity to train on an Akula II class nuclear attack submarine, that the Indian Navy leased from Russia since December 2011.[
      As for any soviet assistance in the ATV project, it very well could be a possibility (I don't know), but the project has been in development since the 1974 pokhran tests.

      Following the 1974 Smiling Buddha nuclear test, the Director of Marine Engineering (DME) at Naval Headquarters (NHQ) initiated a technical feasibility study for an indigenous nuclear propulsion system (Project 932).

      Comment


      • I don't know about with the Akula program. I left the Navy in 2000. But I do know that under the Charlie program, Soviet engineers were responsible for running the propulsion system. That is also why it was a lease and not a sale. The Soviets did not want to share all that technology.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
          If the technology is the same then wouldn't it be more logical strategically and economically for the InN's Project 71-ADS program to implement nuclear instead of conventional fuel in its proposed/underconstruction CVs? Maybe not for IAC1, but IAC2?
          I don't think so. The advantages of nuclear over conventional power aren't really as substantial for surface units, particularly for a force like the Indian Navy that seems to be largely focused on local operations.
          "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Native View Post
            I don't know about with the Akula program. I left the Navy in 2000. But I do know that under the Charlie program, Soviet engineers were responsible for running the propulsion system. That is also why it was a lease and not a sale. The Soviets did not want to share all that technology.
            :) Interesting! The recent Akula II submarines deal has an option for India to buy them after the lease expires.

            Originally posted by Genosaurer View Post
            I don't think so. The advantages of nuclear over conventional power aren't really as substantial for surface units, particularly for a force like the Indian Navy that seems to be largely focused on local operations.
            I see. (The Navy has plans to be a fully fledged "blue water" navy though, I can't see that happening without nuclear propulsion :confu:)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
              I see. (The Navy has plans to be a fully fledged "blue water" navy though, I can't see that happening without nuclear propulsion :confu:)
              Not sure why not. The US Navy did international power projection with the Kitty Hawk class conventional carriers up until a few years ago. There are advantages to nuclear propulsion, but they're not overwhelming ones.

              There are other things I'd say India would be better served focusing on if they want to develop a real blue-water navy.
              "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
                I see. (The Navy has plans to be a fully fledged "blue water" navy though, I can't see that happening without nuclear propulsion :confu:)
                Blue water does not mean global, even though a global navy is a blue water navy. Blue water means the ability to fight at sea far from home. The Indian Navy will have little need of power projection in the Atlantic or off the coast of South America. This is where the advantage of nuclear propulsion really shines- long range operations across the surface of the globe. With a regional focus East Coast of Africa to the Oceania and parts of the Western Pacific oil fired is just fine.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  Blue water does not mean global, even though a global navy is a blue water navy. Blue water means the ability to fight at sea far from home. The Indian Navy will have little need of power projection in the Atlantic or off the coast of South America. This is where the advantage of nuclear propulsion really shines- long range operations across the surface of the globe. With a regional focus East Coast of Africa to the Oceania and parts of the Western Pacific oil fired is just fine.
                  I can see the usefulness of nuclear subs for a powerful regional navy, but beyond that - I think a global navy is about the only type that could see any financial advantage with nuclear surface ships. However, one thing about nuclear carriers that isn't often considered is the extended life of naval airframes that aren't constantly exposed to stack gases.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • :wors: Understood. I would still hope that InN has some future plans for surface Nuclear propulsion, just to understand the tech and save fuel money if nothing else. Ego boost people!

                    Comment


                    • Even the US couldn't afford a surface fleet run with Nuclear power. We dropped that little experiment quick.

                      Only the carriers, and the advantage there is that have more room for Av gas and bombs. (cause it damn sure isn't used for better chow)
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                        Even the US couldn't afford a surface fleet run with Nuclear power. We dropped that little experiment quick.

                        Only the carriers, and the advantage there is that have more room for Av gas and bombs. (cause it damn sure isn't used for better chow)
                        Yes; we tried that, and the advantages did not outweigh the disadvantages for MOST surface combatants. As GG pointed out, the only hullforms it really makes sense for are CV's and SSN's/SSBM's.
                        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          Even the US couldn't afford a surface fleet run with Nuclear power. We dropped that little experiment quick.
                          USS Long Beach was comissioned in 1961 and the USS California decomissioned in 1999.. that's 38 years.. also we had 9 nuclear powered cruisers, not an insignificant force, considering how much they could remain on station compared to a conventional powered cruiser.

                          Comment


                          • Had no idea where to ask this, so mods feel free to move it in a more appropriate thread.

                            I have noticed whenever a bigger ship passes by or enters a port fireboats spray streams of water.

                            Why is that?

                            In my defense, I live in a landlocked country.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • It's a greeting.

                              Comment


                              • Experience response to food....

                                Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                                Even the US couldn't afford a surface fleet run with Nuclear power. We dropped that little experiment quick.

                                Only the carriers, and the advantage there is that have more room for Av gas and bombs. (cause it damn sure isn't used for better chow)
                                I sense a disappointment in the taste of the food .....
                                Perhaps it was the exposure to the combination salt air and radiation?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X