Pakistan working on Nuclear Submarine ?

[niaz]

Raison D’etre of nuclear submarine, whether SSN or SSBN is its capability to remain underwater indefinitely. Therefore in addition to the requirement for fitting a nuclear reactor and its associated paraphernalia required for power generation, there has to be room for food & provisions for about 100 officers & ratings for at 2 to 3 months.

Modern MRE (meal ready to eat) weighs a little over 500 grams per day per person. This means 50 Kg per day or 45 tons for 3 months resulting in more storage space.Longer you are under water, more need of an exercise or a gym. Hence you need a place for the work out.

A nuclear submarine normally has 2 of most things, just in case one breaks down; 2 main engines, 2 electric turbine generators, 2 motor generators (for charging batteries). All of this requires room. That is why nuclear submarines, whether SSN or SSBM need to be bigger.

Smallest SSN to the best of my knowledge was French Rubis class submarines which was 2,660 tons. However the new Barracuda class French submarine is in the 5000 DWT class. Whereas most SSK’ with AIP are about 2000 DWT range.

One must not forget that compared to SSKs nuclear submarines are noisy and not suitable for littoral waters. In my view when a modern SSK with AIP can remain submerged for about 3 weeks; unless a country has ambitions to project power far beyond her shores, nuclear submarine which costs 3 times as much to build is not needed.

 

[Dr Gupta]

http://csis.org/blog/nuclear-vs-diesel-submarines


Hi guys this is a interesting read into the differences and benefits of the nuclear platform

It is important to keep these disadvantages in mind, as well as the significant benefits derived from nuclear propulsion, and to consider the most appropriate uses for diesels. Diesels are best used in areas closer to shore, and their comparatively shorter range and endurance make them somewhat less suitable for long-term reconnaissance missions or for traversing vast expanses of open ocean to fulfill their missions. Their slower speeds might make them more appropriate for defending against other vessels closer to their bases. The need for the U.S. Navy to project power around the world limits the usefulness of diesel subs, given these drawbacks.
The Navy’s nuclear submarines provide both a virtually invulnerable deterrent force in the form of its missile boats, and a persistent attack capability in the form of its attack subs. These assets should continue to form the core of the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet. Yet Schmitt and Shipman are correct in their assessment of the strategic challenge the Navy faces in ensuring it has enough vessels to fulfill its tasks. An alternative to the diesel option (mentioned, but not favored by Schmitt) might be unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). These would be cheaper than building more nuclear subs, and would be able to fulfill “’dull and dangerous’ missions” that are currently done by some attack submarines. Although the effectiveness of UUVs have yet to be fully realized, investment in this area may make more sense than building a new fleet of diesel submarines. A realistic and balanced assessment of the capabilities of various alternatives vis a vis nuclear subs should yield a better sense of which benefits can be achieved by their adoption.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin

My response and rational (therein) was framed towards the gentleman @T-Rex who had the following question:

1) Is it impossible to convert AIP subs into nuclear subs?

2) After someone told him "NO" he shot back with the following:

Would you explain the reason please?

Now, based on above conversation, I released my answer to THAT gentleman @T-Rex
Please note that my response was specially crafted for THAT gentleman, towards HIS query.

And this is where you interjected.

Let us assume that I was talking of SSN and not SSBN, which was not the case however.
Let us presume that it IS SSN.

What is the lowest displacement number for "operational" SSNs ?
And what is the lowest displacement number for "operational" AIPs?

Once you have the right numbers. I would not have to post again on this to prove my point. Cause that would be self explanatory for what I meant, when I replied to T-Rex.

The crux of the matter here is, that the nuclear boats are supposed to be bigger than AIP, and this IS the case normally.

The top three smallest SSNs in active service

1. Rubis class 2,600 t (submerged), to be replaced by Barracuda class 5,300 t (submerged)
2. Trafalgar-class 5,300 tonnes (submerged)
3. HAN class 5,500 tonnes (submerged)

The top 3 smallest AIP-powered SSKs in active service

1. Archer/ Södermanland: 1,500 t (submerged)
2. Gotland class 1,599 tonnes (submerged)
3. Okeanos Type 209-1200 mod 1615 t (submerged)

2600/1500=1.7 (not 3)

It is possible to put AIP onto boats even smaller than 1500ton, e.g. Amur 950 is offered with AIP as an option.

Meanwhile, the larger size of nuclear boats is not necessarily a simple function of the size of their nuclear propulsion. Since they don't have to refuel and can generate their own oxigen while submerged, they can stay out very long, so what you typically see is more creature comforts, larger stores of consumables, larger stores of weapons. All of these add to size.

Still, the French Rubis-class attack submarines are the smallest nuclear warships to date. The US Navy operated an unarmed nuclear submarine, the NR-1 Deep Submergence Craft, between 1969 and 2008, which was not a combat vessel but was the smallest nuclear powered submarine at 400-tons. That shows the possibilities.

USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first operational nuclear-powered submarine, displaced 4,092 tons submerged.

The second smallest nuclear submarine warship is the 2900 ton Skate class, based on the Tang class fleet subs, which were the state of the art in post-World War II conventionally powered submarine design. Skate was the first production run of nuclear-powered submarines.

Our Dutch retired 2,660 t (submerged) Zwaardvis class and current 2,650 t (submerged) Walrus class boats are based on the 2,679 t (submerged) US Barbel class, which itself is in essence a non-nuclear version of the 3,500 ton (submerged) USS Skipjack SSN.

So, that means in essence you could redesign a large SSK e.g. a Kilo or Soryu into a small SSN. Whether you can do this by conversion? Most SSKs that received AIP, did so not (yet) by design but by being cut in half and receiving an additional hull section containing the AIP unit. In theory, that could be an option for a nuclear plant as well, though I don't think it is has actually been done yet.

 

[Dr Gupta]

The Han class were notoriously noisy subs I am sure the Arihant is quieter

Although we do not know the signature of it yet

 

[mehboobkz]

The top three smallest SSNs in active service

1. Rubis class 2,600 t (submerged), to be replaced by Barracuda class 5,300 t (submerged)
2. Trafalgar-class 5,300 tonnes (submerged)
3. HAN class 5,500 tonnes (submerged)

The top 3 smallest AIP-powered SSKs in active service

1. Archer/ Södermanland: 1,500 t (submerged)
2. Gotland class 1,599 tonnes (submerged)
3. Okeanos Type 209-1200 mod 1615 t (submerged)

2600/1500=1.7 (not 3)

It is possible to put AIP onto boats even smaller than 1500ton, e.g. Amur 950 is offered with AIP as an option.

Meanwhile, the larger size of nuclear boats is not necessarily a simple function of the size of their nuclear propulsion. Since they don't have to refuel and can generate their own oxigen while submerged, they can stay out very long, so what you typically see is more creature comforts, larger stores of consumables, larger stores of weapons. All of these add to size.

Still, the French Rubis-class attack submarines are the smallest nuclear warships to date. The US Navy operated an unarmed nuclear submarine, the NR-1 Deep Submergence Craft, between 1969 and 2008, which was not a combat vessel but was the smallest nuclear powered submarine at 400-tons. That shows the possibilities.

USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first operational nuclear-powered submarine, displaced 4,092 tons submerged.

The second smallest nuclear submarine warship is the 2900 ton Skate class, based on the Tang class fleet subs, which were the state of the art in post-World War II conventionally powered submarine design. Skate was the first production run of nuclear-powered submarines.

Our Dutch retired 2,660 t (submerged) Zwaardvis class and current 2,650 t (submerged) Walrus class boats are based on the 2,679 t (submerged) US Barbel class, which itself is in essence a non-nuclear version of the 3,500 ton (submerged) USS Skipjack SSN.

So, that means in essence you could redesign a large SSK e.g. a Kilo or Soryu into a small SSN. Whether you can do this by conversion? Most SSKs that received AIP, did so not (yet) by design but by being cut in half and receiving an additional hull section containing the AIP unit. In theory, that could be an option for a nuclear plant as well, though I don't think it is has actually been done yet.

With your given boats:

AIP average displacement = 1570

SSN average displacement = 4450

What do you get?

And Rubis class is just first generation submarine., which no nation would like to have in their navy.

 

[Penguin]

With your given boats:

AIP average displacement = 1570

SSN average displacement = 4450

What do you get?

And Rubis class is just first generation submarine., which no nation would like to have in their navy.

Yeah, so? Your original statement didn't mention the word average, remember. You presented something as if it were a general law, relating size of SSK to size of SSN in a fixed ratio, as a function of their propulsion (if propulsion is 0 then size 1 and if propulsion is 1 then size is 3).

Your average AIP equipped SSK will come out larger than 1570 tons and so will your average in service SSN. And their ratio will again differ. And those numbers will be yet different when you start distinguishing generations of each and comparing those.

The discussion wasn't about whether the Rubis class (or the Han, for that matter) or any other earlier generation boat is nice. The question was what is the smallest SSN in service. And the Rubis is just that. And had I not had the courtesy to answer your question for a 1 on 1 comparison with a 3 on 3 comparison, you wouln't have even been able to start working with averages as you just did (and pretending you did that all along).

Key fact: the smallest functional nuclear submarine still remains a 400 ton boat.

There are far larger AIP equipped SSKs e.g. the 4,500 ton (submerged) Japanse Soryu that was in the running for the Australian tender for 12 submarines.

As indicated, the displacement of an SSN is not solely (or even largely) a function of its nuclear propulsion.

Every point I've made still stands, also in relation to the question whether you can turn an SSK into an SSN.

 

[Zahoor Raja-Jani]

A Pakistani defense analyst Mansoor Ahmed recently told Defense News that he has for some time believed Pakistan was working on a nuclear propulsion system for submarine applications and that Pakistan already has a functional submarine launched variant of the Babur cruise missile.

Pakistan's Babur cruise missile is very similar to the U.S. BGM-109 Tomahawk, and it can carry conventional or nuclear warheads, according to Ahmed.

Ahmed says Pakistan is now gearing up to build its own SSN/SSGN flotilla as a way of deterring India and maintaining the strategic balance in South Asia. However, Ahmed argues that Pakistan should build ballistic missile submarines. to fully ensure the credibility of its deterrent.

As per reports project still exists but still on drawing boards because in during PPP term project was halted due to funds and still today only R & D funds available its mean we are still far behind initial schedule 2017 and i believe one more decade will go in waste.

 

[barbarosa]

The nuke weapons are not only our security but also our constrain.

 

[T-Rex]

Yeah, so? Your original statement didn't mention the word average, remember. You presented something as if it were a general law, relating size of SSK to size of SSN in a fixed ratio, as a function of their propulsion (if propulsion is 0 then size 1 and if propulsion is 1 then size is 3).

Your average AIP equipped SSK will come out larger than 1570 tons and so will your average in service SSN. And their ratio will again differ. And those numbers will be yet different when you start distinguishing generations of each and comparing those.

The discussion wasn't about whether the Rubis class (or the Han, for that matter) or any other earlier generation boat is nice. The question was what is the smallest SSN in service. And the Rubis is just that. And had I not had the courtesy to answer your question for a 1 on 1 comparison with a 3 on 3 comparison, you wouln't have even been able to start working with averages as you just did (and pretending you did that all along).

Key fact: the smallest functional nuclear submarine still remains a 400 ton boat.

There are far larger AIP equipped SSKs e.g. the 4,500 ton (submerged) Japanse Soryu that was in the running for the Australian tender for 12 submarines.

As indicated, the displacement of an SSN is not solely (or even largely) a function of its nuclear propulsion.

Every point I've made still stands, also in relation to the question whether you can turn an SSK into an SSN.

Please mention the name of that 400 ton SSN and its origin. I didn't know that an SSN could be so small.

 

[Arsalan]

Please mention the name of that 400 ton SSN and its origin. I didn't know that an SSN could be so small.

It is not a SSN. (SSN being US hull classification for general nuclear power attack submarines) The one @Penguin mentioned here is simple the smallest nuclear powered submarine.

The smallest nuclear powered submarine is the American NR-1 known as “Nerwin” with a displacement of 400 ton. It was a nuclear powered ocean engineering and research submarine built by General Dynamics.

You may b interested in:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nr-1.htm

 

[Jhon Smith]

THE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE



The first nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. NAUTILUS, launched in 1954, resembled conventional submarines in many respects, but its great range both above and below the surface made it a revolutionary and formidable weapon. The Nautilus sailed almost 170,000 km (105,633 mi; 91,733naut mi) before refueling; 146,000 km (90,720 mi; 78,782 naut mi) were spent submerged. On Aug. 3, 1958, it sailed under the Arctic ice and the North Pole.

Following the Nautilus and a group of submarines of the same design, the U.S. Navy developed the Skipjack class of nuclear submarine, which had a teardrop-shaped hull design and was capable of reaching underwater speeds of more than 30 knots. Succeeding nuclear submarines, the Thresher and Sturgeon classes, were designed to be high-speed detection and attack vessels. The U.S.S. Triton, launched in 1959, is among the largest and is propelled by two nuclear reactors. In 1960 the Triton circumnavigated the globe underwater, traveling 78,858 km (49,000 mi; 42,552 naut mi) in 84 days.

The nuclear BALLISTIC MISSILE submarine is perhaps the ultimate development of the submarine's military potential, having the ability to launch as many as several dozen intercontinental ballistic missiles while submerged. Following the first underwater launch of a POLARIS missile from the U.S.S. George Washington in 1960, such submarines entered the U.S. and Soviet navies in increasing numbers, as well as those of Great Britain and France. U.S. nuclear submarine classes include those carrying the POSEIDON missile and a new fleet of TRIDENT submarines, first launched in the early 1980s. The Soviet fleet, about 230 nuclear submarines, is now shared by Russia and Ukraine.

With the end of the Cold War, the question of how to dispose of the nuclear engines in aging submarines became paramount, especially for the former Soviet fleet, many of whose vessels will be retired during the decade of the 1990s.

I think Pakistan don't need a nuclear submarine . an AIP ballistic submarine will be a great deal . most probably , we can get them from china in the form of S20 .

Pak must need it now!!

I am sharing one of most interesting video on Navy life

 

[Penguin]

Please mention the name of that 400 ton SSN and its origin. I didn't know that an SSN could be so small.

Nowhere did I the 400 tons boat was an SSN

I said that the smallest nuclear submarine is 400 tons: the American NR-1 known as “Nerwin”

For anyone that failed to grasp the significance of Nerwin: it demonstrates that nuclear power doesn't necessarily mean a large boat (just like we see that AIP is not limited to large SSKs but is available for boats under 1000 tons).

 

[Hassan Guy]

Aight, cool......Now would be a good time to finish it.....

 

[advocate abdullah sheikh]

Hello All
Please let me know where are we making this N-Sub, Is there any hidden Sub making facility in any of Our Mountains,??????
And from where we are getting the Material that is required to make the body of SUB,?????? R we making that in Pakistan ?? Where?? And What About Other Hundreds of Systems???
And In Last we only have very few like 2 to 3 sites where we can make Subs or where Sub making facilities are available , And USA AND All other Countries don't know or have Any Idea that we are making a N-Sub and it will come out in 2020, Almost ready in one piece and soon going for Sea Trials...
WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Thank You All and looking for sold answer!!!!!!!!!

thank you for a reasonful reply of all the intellectualls. i fully agreed to you.but i think pak navy is abtaining 8 u.an class subs r also not having nuclear capibilities those r only deasal electric. it would be a good dream if there any nuclear sub is being doveloped in pakistan.in karachi ship yard it could be but i think it is far away. i fully agreed to you dear.thanks chacha ji.

 

[Abrar Munir Rajput]

How about lease it from China
They have many

Then why u don't try?