What's new

Acoustic Signature of Arihant-class SSBN

Chanakya's_Chant

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,395
Reaction score
28
Country
India
Location
India
A research paper published by Lowy Institute has claimed that Chinese and Indian ballistic missile submarines are not yet technologically advanced enough and too few in number to provide their respective countries with an invulnerable nuclear arsenal that would deter an aggressor from launching a nuclear attack for fear of retaliation.

While U.S. and Soviet missile-carrying ballistic submarines (SSBNs) with their invulnerable second-strike capability have helped maintain nuclear deterrence – and as a consequence peace – during the Cold War, Chinese and Indian subs in Asian waters today could trigger instability and conflict for the simple reason that they are just still too easy to detect.

The Chinese Type 094 Jin-class SSBN–“China’s first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent,” according to the Pentagon—is allegedly easier to detect than Soviet SSBNs from the late 1970s. Conversely, the acoustic signature of India’s Arihant-class SSBN “is not likely to be quieter than China’s Jin-class boats” the study notes.

Additionally, New Delhi faces the problem that its K-15 ballistic missiles purportedly only have a range of 750km, which means that Indian SSBNs have to cross busy maritime chokepoints to patrol along China’s coastline making them, in turn, more vulnerable to detection.

On top of that, lack of proper training and doctrine in addition to inadequate command and control systems adds to the unpredictability of Chinese and Indian ballistic missile subs and can furthermore contribute to uncertainty during times of crisis.

Reference:- How China and India’s Noisy Nuclear Subs Contribute to Instability in Asia | The Diplomat

Observations on India / Arihant-class SSBN -

INDIA

India’s nuclear forces are in the midst of extensive modernisation. Despite confident rhetoric about the quality of India’s deterrent, it remains uncertain whether India has a reliable second-strike capability against its two potential adversaries, China and Pakistan. It is widely assumed that India’s land-based missiles, often with shorter ranges, are intended to deter a nuclear-armed Pakistan, whereas the submarine program is aimed at giving India confidence that it will not be coerced by China. Some of India’s land-based weapons, notably long-range variants of the Agni missile, are also believed to be designed to target China, but submarines will increase India’s confidence that it could retaliate if struck first.

Test flights of Indian ballistic missiles are becoming commonplace. It is possible that in 2015 India will conduct the first test-firing of a ballistic missile — the B-05 or K-15 — from a submerged Indian submarine. This would be the next step in advancing India’s long-held ambition to achieve a ‘triad’ of land-, air- and sea-launched nuclear weapons. A previous milestone in this program was the launch in 2009 of New Delhi’s first SSBN, the INS Arihant. A second such submarine is being built — potentially to be put to sea within the next year or two — and a third and possibly fourth are also planned. There are reports that in the medium term, an updated design is planned for India’s fifth SSBN, which will be larger and contain a more powerful reactor, allowing longer-range patrols.

There are conflicting accounts of whether India intends the Arihant to be merely a technology demonstrator or an operational weapons-carrying platform. In 2010 Indian media reported the then Indian Naval Chief as suggesting that K-15 ballistic missiles would be paired with the vessel from about 2016. However, there has been some speculation that since the vessel is partly based on the old Akula-class Soviet SSN, and because it is India’s first indigenously designed nuclear submarine, its acoustic signature is not likely to be quieter than China’s Jin-class boats. In other words, both India and China will initially have nuclear-armed submarines that are relatively easy for potential adversaries to track.

The shortcomings of the K-15 SLBM are a major limitation on India’s sea-based nuclear deterrent. The range of the K-15 is believed to be just 750 km, meaning that Indian vessels would have to patrol dangerously close to the Chinese or Pakistani coasts. In terms of India’s deterrent against China, a vessel equipped with the K-15 would have to transit busy choke points such as the Straits of Malacca or Sunda and loiter off the Chinese coastline, thereby running a high risk of being detected by China’s fast-improving surveillance and anti-access forces and being pre-emptively attacked in a crisis. The nature of the Soviet-designed nuclear reactor on board, with a short refuelling cycle, could also limit the length and frequency of patrols.

New Delhi is trying to address these shortcomings by developing submarine-launched missiles with longer ranges: the K-4 (3000 km range) underwent an undersea test launch (from a pontoon not a submarine) in early 2015 and the K-5 (5000 km range) is reportedly in the design phase. It is unclear whether these larger missiles would fit into the Arihant class, or whether they will only be compatible with an updated Indian SSBN design. It is possible that Indian submarines will end up carrying up to twelve K-15 missiles each, or a smaller number, perhaps four, of the long-range missiles.

Research Paper - Nuclear-armed submarines in Indo-Pacific Asia: Stabiliser or menace?

Here's a comparative analysis of acoustic signatures of various nuclear submarines as per the US Naval Intelligence -

submarine+signatures+2.jpg

349.jpg

acustic+signatures+US+v+Russia.jpg


Since Arihant's design is based on the Russian Akula-1 Class submarine - is it safe to assume that it's acoustic signature will be similar to Akula-1 Class? and what are its implications? @AUSTERLITZ @MilSpec @Capt.Popeye @Penguin @Technogaianist
 
. .
I don't know enough about submarines to make a rational analysis, sorry. Not my department. But I will say this:

India and China don't have the legacy or operational experience that the US and Russia have. They've yet to determine what works and what doesn't, and what design changes should be made to negate the "what doesn't". This experience comes from tracking; having your subs be tracked by an adversarial nation - for the US it was Russia, for Russia it was the UK and US. India has China as its adversary, but neither has had enough exposure to one another to yet realize whether or not their quieting and signature suppression tech will make a difference.

It'll come, they'll make adjustments, especially China as it needs to contend with Japanese, US, Indian and Russian subs prowling the region, but neither India nor China has yet put themselves in the same discussion as the US or Russia.

...

India was lucky to have had Russian sub-building experience, but I can't image the Russians would share all their quieting techniques. They leased you a sub and may have provided technical support, but they didn't share everything they know. Still, it forms a base that India can build off of. Of course reactor design, sub design, dampening equipment, sensor noise, a sub's propulsion system... my point is there's more to "noise" and each signature and source needs to be suppressed and India, while it has a strong foundation, needs to continue to build upon it.

India and China don't yet have the operational experience, but they likely do have the technology - but it's less about technology and more about design and fitting that design to your ocean topography, and can make the adjustments when they recognize adjustments need to be made.

Good new: you'll get there, your subs will become quieter. Bad news: you aren't there yet.

...

Noise isn't just about submarines either, but I'll let someone else explain that for me:

So you want to detect a submarine?

...

The source of these claims on sub noise is ONI - the Office of Naval Intelligence:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Unlike what our Chinese "fiends" (I think most of them are morons) like to claim, about the Pentagon and ONI being wrong on their assessments, we can be reasonably sure these assessments are accurate. After all, ONI is sourcing its info from sub-hunters that have actual experience tracking Indian, Russia and Chinese subs.

Anyone remember this incident? It's been repeated without too much exposure:
spy-7_111813033828.jpg


You can be damn sure the US has logged IN sub's signatures.

They do have real-world experience tracking enemy subs. Their claims aren't speculation.
paris-p8-1200x800-ts600.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I don't know enough about submarines to make a rational analysis, sorry. Not my department. But I will say this:

India and China don't have the legacy or operational experience that the US and Russia have. They've yet to determine what works and what doesn't, and what design changes should be made to negate the "what doesn't". This experience comes from tracking having your subs be tracked by an adversarial nation - for the US it was Russia, for Russia it was the UK and US. India has China as its adversary, but neither has had enough exposure to one another to yet realize whether or not their quieting and signature suppression tech will make a difference.

China has operated the nuclear sub for more than 40 years, so I don't think it is appropriate to put China in the same category with India who hasn't yet deployed an operational nuclear sub.
 
.
I don't know enough about submarines to make a rational analysis, sorry. Not my department. But I will say this:

India and China don't have the legacy or operational experience that the US and Russia have. They've yet to determine what works and what doesn't, and what design changes should be made to negate the "what doesn't". This experience comes from tracking having your subs be tracked by an adversarial nation - for the US it was Russia, for Russia it was the UK and US. India has China as its adversary, but neither has had enough exposure to one another to yet realize whether or not their quieting and signature suppression tech will make a difference.

It'll come, they'll make adjustments, especially China as it need to contend with Japanese, US, Indian and Russian subs prowling the region, but neither India nor China has yet put themselves in the same discussion as the US or Russia.

...

India was lucky to have had Russian sub-building experience, but I can't imaging the Russians would share all their quieting techniques. They leased you a sub and make have provided technical support, but they didn't share everything they know. Still, it forms a base that India can build off of. Of course reactor design, sub design, dampening equipment, sensor noise, a sub's propulsion system... my point is there's more to "noise" and each signature and source needs to be suppressed.

India and China don't yet have the operational experience, but they likely do have the technology - but it's less about technology and more about design and fitting that design to your ocean topography, and can make the adjustments when they recognize adjustments need to be made.

Good new, you'll get there, your subs will become quieter. Bad news, you aren't there yet.

...

Noise isn't just about submarines either, but I'll let someone else explain that for me:

So you want to detect a submarine?

...

The source of these claims on sub noise is ONI - the Office of Naval Intelligence, unlike what our Chinese fiends like to claim, about the Pentagon and ONI being wrong on their assessments, we can be reasonably sure these assessments are accurate. After all, ONI is sourcing its info from sub-hunters that have actual experience tracking Indian, Russia and Chinese subs.

Anyone remember this incident? It's been repeated without too much exposure:
spy-7_111813033828.jpg


You can be damn sure the US has logged IN sub's signatures.

They do have real-world experience tracking enemy subs. Their claims aren't speculation.
paris-p8-1200x800-ts600.jpg

We've got more experience with subs than India or China as we've actually used them in war ! :smokin:

But the Chinese have the best subs in the region ! :agree:
 
.
But the Chinese have the best subs in the region ! :agree:

Say hi to USS Hawaii in Japan for me:wave:. She's a Virginia Class:smitten:.
120611-N-DI599-003.jpg


And USS Georgia at Deigo Garcia - an Ohio class SSGN:
The_guided_missile_submarine_USS_Georgia_%28SSGN_729%29_prepares_to_moor_alongside_the_submarine_tender_USS_Emory_S._Land_%28AS_39%29%2C_not_shown%2C_at_Naval_Support_Facility_Diego_Garcia%2C_British_Indian_Ocean_Territory_131213-N-GL207-015.jpg


Let's not compare SSC, SSK or AIP subs to nuclear boats, it's disingenuous.

This:

20120921th_%204896.jpg


Isn't even in the same class as:

INS_Arihant_during_sea_trials.jpg


Totally different mission profile, design philosophy and technology.

China has operated the nuclear sub for more than 40 years, so I don't think it is appropriate to put China in the same category with India who hasn't yet deployed an operational nuclear sub.

Take your problem to ONI, they consider Chinese submarines to be on par with those of India, who's are rather good - since they're based on or are actual Russian designs.

It's not that China and India aren't in the same class, they are considered to be by the US military, it's that you don't consider them to be due to jingoism. Your poor opinion of India leads to a biased viewpoint of their capabilities.

And don't bother me again, I've got you on my ignore list for a reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . .
Take your problem to ONI, they consider Chinese submarines to be on par with those of India, who's are rather good - since they're based on or are actual Russian designs.

And don't bother me again, I've got you on my ignore list for a reason.

Here is the assessment from the US navy expert on the Chinese nuclear sub, not from a self-proclaimed expert such as Hans Kristensen.

China's Type 093 SSN has acoustic signature of 110 decibels

And no, China's sub isn't from the Russian design, since Russia even refused to lease a SSN to us.

The Type 094 resembles the Type Delta IV because of the hump, but this is a common feature for all SSBNs which don't have a modern streamline design.

BTW, I don't know what helps you to earn the professional title, since your knowledge is far from being qualified as a professional.

And next time don't drag China around, otherwise there will be backlash.
 
. .
Not in the Indian ocean they don't

China's SSNs are freely roaming around the Indian Ocean, yet I am waiting an Indian nuclear sub is doing the same thing.

You won't even know when our nuclear sub is wandering close to the vicinity of your coast.
 
.
Whether US or Russian subs are quieter may be besides the point. The question is: are the Chinese and Indian boats quiet enough - and their captains and crew skilled enough - to avoid being detected by the opposite force, which in this case is the Indian and Chinese navies. It means that the question of 'how good are these SSBNs?'has to be answered in relation to the respective ASW capabilities, in terms of hard- and software, training and skills. How good are their respective ASW platforms from a technological point of view? And how well are the forces trained in ASW? What are their respective doctrines? And, if the Russians or the Americans detected the Chinese or Indian boats, who (if anyone) would they warn?

Indian nuclear subs - being nuclear - could take the long route around Australia. Also, passing through some of those chokepoints may actually be aided by the fact that these ARE chokepoints > they will be very busy and subs could possibly make use of the 'cover' provided by the numerous noisy civilian shipping (this is just my speculation).
 
Last edited:
.
Whether US or Russian subs are quieter may be besides the point. The question is: are the Chinese and Indian boats quiet enough - and their captains and crew skilled enough - to avoid being detected by the opposite force, which in this case is the Indian and Chinese navies. It means that the question of 'how good are these SSBNs?'has to be answered in relation to the respective ASW capabilities, in terms of hard- and software, training and skills. How good are their respective ASW platforms from a technological point of view? And how well are the forces trained in ASW? What are their respective doctrines? If the Russians or the Americans detected the Chinese or Indian boats, (who) would they warn?

Indian nuclear subs - being nuclear - could take the long route around Australia. Also, passing through some of those chokepoints may actually be aided by the fact that these ARE chokepoints > they will be very busy and subs could possibly make use of the 'cover' provided by the numerous noisy civilian shipping (this is just my speculation).

I have a question, what China and India are in common with each other?

Does India have the thermonuclear warhead like China?

Does India have the ICBM like China?

Does India have yet to deploy their own nuclear sub? China has done that since 40 years ago.

Except the population size, China and India have nothing in common with each other.

@Beidou2020 @Martian2
 
. .
China's SSNs are freely roaming around the Indian Ocean, yet I am waiting an Indian nuclear sub is doing the same thing.

You won't even know when our nuclear sub is wandering close to the vicinity of your coast.

Same with SCS
 
.
Back
Top Bottom