What's new

India all set to lease a second nuclear submarine from Russia

Major Shaitan Singh

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
3,550
Reaction score
43
Country
India
Location
India
4459108ajpl_468.jpg


India is all set to acquire a second nuclear submarine on lease from Russia. The two sides have had preliminary discussions and a serious push is expected when Indian Defence Secretary RK Mathur meets his Russian counterparts during his visit to Moscow next week.
The idea had germinated in the Indian strategic establishment long before the Russian-built electric-powered submarine INS Sindhurakshak got sunk at its moorings in Mumbai naval dockyard on August 14.

Now with the Sindhurakshak practically gone forever and the Indian submarine fleet having been constricted to just 13 – of which only 7 or 8 can be operational at a given time – the Indian idea has acquired a greater steam. The loss of INS Sindhurakshak seems to have catalysed the Indian defence establishment to come up with ideas that would ensure that India’s undersea warfare capabilities are actually bolstered, and not dented.

Indian Defence Secretary RK Mathur is all set to lead an Indian tri-service delegation to Moscow for the next round of High Level Monitoring Group on Defence. Mathur will be reaching Russia on September 1 for these crucial talks and the issue of taking on lease a second Russian nuclear submarine for the Indian defence forces will be very high on his agenda.

Sources say the Indian defence secretary will be negotiating with his Russian counterparts on many other agendas but his foremost talking point would inevitably veer around the subject of India acquiring the nuclear submarine on lease as it would provide New Delhi an immediate solution to deal with maritime threats in the neighbourhood.

The Russians are positively inclined to the idea of leasing a second nuclear submarine to India, according to sources. Actually, if this idea were to translate into reality, it would be the third nuclear submarine that the Russia would be leasing to India.

The first time it was then Soviet Union which had leased a nuclear submarine (named INS Chakra by the Indian Navy) way back in 1988. The lease at that time was only for three years and the Indians duly returned the vessel after the lease expired.

The second time India got on lease a nuclear submarine from Russia was a couple of years ago when India and Russia finalised the contract for it in 2011 and the Russian Nerpa class submarine was inducted into the Indian Navy last year as INS Chakra. The lease cost a billion dollars to India for a period of ten years.

The third lease, if it transpires (which it should given the political will from both the sides), should also be for a minimum of ten years. However, the lease values may be a bone of contention for the two sides. While the Indians are willing to shell out a billion dollars for taking on lease another nuclear submarine for a period of ten years, the Russians have jacked up the monetary value.

Moreover, the Russians have already conveyed to their Indian interlocutors that India cannot hope to get a nuclear submarine on lease from any other country. From India’s point of view, though the Russian logic seems to be well in place but then other countries like France and the UK may be persuaded to lease a nuclear submarine given India’s standing in the comity of nations currently.

The Indian strategic establishment seems quite upbeat on the idea of acquiring another nuclear submarine. The Indians have even named their probably acquisition as INS Chakra III.

Indian Defence Goal
 
. . .
Great news and quite expected. Anyway there are chances that India might buy these subs after the lease.

For me it is better to buy 3-4 Scorpene then leasing the nucl. submarine

what about buying atleast 1 or both akulas after the lease date end?? I think its very much on the card and would be exercised as per the situation then.
 
.
A right step in right direction. We should lease couple of more with nuclear missiles and nuclear weapon.

Not possible,acc to intl treaties these leased subs may not carry any nuclear weapons.
They will act as undersea hunter killers,with anti ship and land attack missiles and torpedoes.
After 10 yrs we have option to buy them which in all probability will be exercised.
 
.
Stupid idea !
If we are going to get a nuclear sub,that too for 1.2 bn $. They aren't going to handover serving sub to us. It will take nearly 4-5yrs. They have to build it and test it.
It is better to acquire 3 ssk through import, that too in 5-6 yrs for the same amount. Also it will serve 30yrs.
 
.
Not possible,acc to intl treaties these leased subs may not carry any nuclear weapons.
They will act as undersea hunter killers,with anti ship and land attack missiles and torpedoes.
After 10 yrs we have option to buy them which in all probability will be exercised.

I do not know that in much detail but I believe that if you pay some extra dollars to Russians, everything is possible. They will sell you everything unless it is against their interest. They do not care much of International treaties.
 
.
I do not know that in much detail but I believe that if you pay some extra dollars to Russians, everything is possible. They will sell you everything unless it is against their interest. They do not care much of International treaties.

Not in this case.violating this treaty for a few dollars is quite impossible.

Stupid idea !
If we are going to get a nuclear sub,that too for 1.2 bn $. They aren't going to handover serving sub to us. It will take nearly 4-5yrs. They have to build it and test it.
It is better to acquire 3 ssk through import, that too in 5-6 yrs for the same amount. Also it will serve 30yrs.

Submarine is almost built,its unfinished from 90s and IN is concentrating on SSN's which can be on patrol equal to 3 SSKs patrol time due to reactor.
 
. . .
Even i am more in favour of ssk than ssbn due to noise issue but scorpenes are not a good platform for second strike capability..............even akulas are not for the matter as indian leased akulas lack any long ranged weapons!!!so whats the use of this??
 
.
Even i am more in favour of ssk than ssbn due to noise issue but scorpenes are not a good platform for second strike capability..............even akulas are not for the matter as indian leased akulas lack any long ranged weapons!!!so whats the use of this??

Those have one aim : Scare tactics.

A 300km equipped/750km equipped SLBM can destroy almost any land based target in a deterrence role. Scorpenes are known for their low noise levels. That was the reason we bought them. Other wise we could go for 6 - 8 more Kilos at lesser price.
 
.
Submarine is almost built,its unfinished from 90s and IN is concentrating on SSN's which can be on patrol equal to 3 SSKs patrol time due to reactor.

isn't only hull is finished? They have to refurnish and develop other systems and assemble it!
If we go for lease,we have to pay more than 1 bn$ for 10yrs.
If we go for ssk,it should sereve us more than 30yrs.
Moreover we are short on sub numbers.
 
. .
Even i am more in favour of ssk than ssbn due to noise issue but scorpenes are not a good platform for second strike capability..............even akulas are not for the matter as indian leased akulas lack any long ranged weapons!!!so whats the use of this??

SSK - Diesel electric attack submarine
SSBN - Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine
SSN - Nuclear powered attack submarine

All these serve very different purposes. The Akula is a SSN. It is used for long range patrol. SSKs are good for coastal defence and will be needed in greater numbers to cover a same area as the SSN. The SSK also is most silent while using the AIP. Problem with this is that it can move only at 2 to 4 knots if I am not mistaken.

If the IN wishes to patrol the IOR effectively, it will need a combination of SSK (for shorter ranges), SSN (for longer range patrols) and SSBN for deterrent.

The SSBN (Arihant class) is for deterrent as per current available information.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom