Indian Acquisition of Russian Akula

[Dash]

^^^ there is an option to purchase these...nowhere it is said that INDIA will purchase it.

I have a doubt, so this is a question to all-

First of all when the talks started btn India and Russia, there were 2 Akull II(Improved called Nerpa)s with Russia. India wanted to lease them due to delays concerning ATV.

Now these 2 Akullas were partially built and we had to finance these to build it further.

As of 2005, the two Akulas, one said to be 70-85% complete and the other said to be 40-60% complete, were estimated to cost India some $400m. The leasing costs would amount to some $25m a year. The construction of both submarines and training of the crews could run up to around $2 billion.

Now the question is -

With som much money involved, whats the point of not buying it?, I have also read somewhere that we can buy it after 10 years of service?

I mean whats the point if you dont keep it post lease period ends....

 

[syntax_error]

I have a doubt, so this is a question to all-

First of all when the talks started btn India and Russia, there were 2 Akull II(Improved called Nerpa)s with Russia. India wanted to lease them due to delays concerning ATV.

Now these 2 Akullas were partially built and we had to finance these to build it further.

As of 2005, the two Akulas, one said to be 70-85% complete and the other said to be 40-60% complete, were estimated to cost India some $400m. The leasing costs would amount to some $25m a year. The construction of both submarines and training of the crews could run up to around $2 billion.

Now the question is -

With som much money involved, whats the point of not buying it?, I have also read somewhere that we can buy it after 10 years of service?

I mean whats the point if you dont keep it post lease period ends....

I dont think u can buy ... nuclear powered weapons..other countries can assist,guide you into build one urself but a outright buy .. nope not allowed...

 

[jha]

I have a doubt, so this is a question to all-

First of all when the talks started btn India and Russia, there were 2 Akull II(Improved called Nerpa)s with Russia. India wanted to lease them due to delays concerning ATV.

Now these 2 Akullas were partially built and we had to finance these to build it further.

As of 2005, the two Akulas, one said to be 70-85% complete and the other said to be 40-60% complete, were estimated to cost India some $400m. The leasing costs would amount to some $25m a year. The construction of both submarines and training of the crews could run up to around $2 billion.

Now the question is -

With som much money involved, whats the point of not buying it?, I have also read somewhere that we can buy it after 10 years of service?

I mean whats the point if you dont keep it post lease period ends....

I am not saying that We wont buy it...i was just replying to the other guy that we have not bought it yet and there is an option to buy this...
however when the lease of CHAKRAs ends, we may very well have atleast 3 ARIHANTHs in our kitty and who knows we might have moved on to build our own NERPAs...

 

[Dash]

I am not saying that We wont buy it...i was just replying to the other guy that we have not bought it yet and there is an option to buy this...
however when the lease of CHAKRAs ends, we may very well have atleast 3 ARIHANTHs in our kitty and who knows we might have moved on to build our own NERPAs...

Thanks for saying that we can buy it, Yes there is an "Option" yo buy it.

Not convincing Jha ji
I mean just because you can build several Nerpa's you will loose $2 billion dollar and a nuclear sub, not economical at all...anyways we will see that.

@ Syntax_error
what is said is also wrong.

I dont think u can buy ... nuclear powered weapons..other countries can assist,guide you into build one urself but a outright buy .. nope not allowed...

Prolifiration is about nuclear warheads, not nuclear technology, Buying Nerpa is "almost" like buying a nuclear reactor technology, and in this case we are not even buying the technology. So this is allowed like a catch.

 

[jha]

Thanks for saying that we can buy it, Yes there is an "Option" yo buy it.

Not convincing Jha ji
I mean just because you can build several Nerpa's you will loose $2 billion dollar and a nuclear sub, not economical at all...anyways we will see that.

@ Syntax_error
what is said is also wrong.






Prolifiration is about nuclear warheads, not nuclear technology, Buying Nerpa is "almost" like buying a nuclear reactor technology, and in this case we are not even buying the technology. So this is allowed like a catch.

Bhai mere...2 Bill. is not solely for leasing the subs...there is always something XTRA in india-russia deal which seldom comes out...
this money might be a kind of payment for their help in our own SSBNs ...

 

[Dash]

Yeah Jhaji - I will agree with this, India and Russia have something or other that comes as a surprise...by the way, after all getting 2 nerpas is not a joke, a solid punch to our naval power.

 

[indian-army]

indian navy rocks

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Can anyone clarify wether the Akulas have capabilities to carry SF or just an Underwater arm?

 

[jha]

^^ SF..????

 

[satishkumarcsc]

special forces....

 

[Kinetic]

Can anyone clarify wether the Akulas have capabilities to carry SF or just an Underwater arm?

May not SF. Because it will be dangerous that a vital asset like Akula-II going near enemy shore. It might carry Klub anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles.

 

[sancho]

Now the question is -

With som much money involved, whats the point of not buying it?, I have also read somewhere that we can buy it after 10 years of service?

I mean whats the point if you dont keep it post lease period ends....

AFAIK arms with nuclear propulsion can't be sold to other nations, that's also why Brazil can't simply buy an SSN from France and only gets assistance in development of such a propulsion, in addition to the procurment of a Socrpene, or Baracuda hull without the propulsion. Also buying Akulas without the capability of using Brahmos cruise missiles would not be a good idea, because it these would be limited to hunting subs, or vessels only, with no real land attack capability.
Leasing it and train the crews for our SSBNs is good enough for now, but imo new SSKs with AIP propulsion are more important for our defense and superiority in the Indian Ocean against PLAN.

 

[Dash]

Ok....

Leasing it and train the crews for our SSBNs is good enough for now, but imo new SSKs with AIP propulsion are more important for our defense and superiority in the Indian Ocean against PLAN.

Yes, I agree with that....however regarding the sale of nuclear subs..

This is according to what treaty that arms with nuclear propulsion cant be sold? NPT, CTBT or MTCR?...asking you so that I can do a bit research.