Pakistan's Nuclear Submarine Project

[gslv mk3]

If India is so good at nuclear reactors why is Russia building them for India?

We are making N-reactors upto 700MWe.Russian ones we bought are 1000MWe +.

 

[SQ8]

We are making N-reactors upto 700MWe.Russian ones we bought are 1000MWe +.

The issue is NOT if India cant build them, but whether India can build them in the time it needs them.
In either case, ANY further discussion on India or Indian systems will lead to warnings.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The issue is NOT if India cant build them, but whether India can build them in the time it needs them.

hi @Oscar!
You are cent percent correct! back in 2013,when BARC came to my college for recruitment drive advertisement and just to motivate young engineers to take up career in nuclear engineering( instead of settling for companies like goldman sachs,credit suisse etc that visit my college and hire engineers at really awesome salaries),i raised this very same question to the guy giving the speech and he simply said-
"India's established manufacturing capabilities in nuclear energy sector cant keep pace with the demand of energy and hence we'll buy additional reactors to balance the offset".

Then i asked him about development of light weight reactors,and he replied that india's focus was never on LWRs,instead it was on PHWRs(1st stage),FBR(2nd stage) and AHWR(3rd stage),CHTRs(4th gen).He went on to explain how canadian designed PHWRs formed the basis for the design of indian 120MW variants back in 70s .Later on they upgraded the design to 220MW and 550MW in mid 90s and mid 2000s respectively.Finally a highly advanced variant of 550MW PHWR was designed that could produce 700MW- this new reactor has been standardized and being offered to various state govt energy dept by NPCIL/BARC. However as opposed to itz predecessors(that consumed LEU),this 700MW variant consumes SEU(slightly enriched uranium)
In a written reply in LOK SABHA,former energy minister informed that cost of operating indian PHWRs is even lower than korean 1000MW reactors.(I can quote LOK SABHA proceedings,in case you wish to verify the data)
He also went on to say-
"We have designed 900MW light water reactors,with passive safety features- however no decision has been taken by the central govt to install them".
He(the BARC guy giving speech) also informed that BARC has designed various MEMS based sensors that are now being used in indian reactors replacing their european versions that once featured in our plants!For instance he said-
"Our MEMS based sensors can detect presence of hydrogen in 1 in million parts,Such is the sensitive requirement of hydrogen detection in sodium cooled FBR that BARC has constructed in kalpakkam"

 

[SQ8]

hi oscar!
You are cent percent correct! back in 2013,when BARC came to my college for recruitment drive advertisement and just to motivate young engineers to take up career in nuclear engineering( instead of settling for companies like goldman sachs,credit suisse etc that visit my college and hire engineers at really awesome salaries),i raised this very same question to the guy giving the speech and he simply said-
"India's established manufacturing capabilities in nuclear energy sector cant keep pace with the demand of energy and hence we'll buy additional reactors to balance the offset".

Then i asked him about development of light weight reactors,and he replied that india's focus was never on LWRs,instead it was on PHWRs(1st stage),FBR(2nd stage) and AHWR(3rd stage),CHTRs(4th gen).He went on to explain how canadian designed PHWRs formed the basis for the design of indian 120MW variants back in 70s .Later on they upgraded the design to 220MW and 550MW in mid 90s and mid 2000s respectively.Finally a highly advanced variant of 550MW PHWR was designed that could produce 700MW- this new reactor has been standardized and being offered to various state govt energy dept by NPCIL/BARC. However as opposed to itz predecessors(that consumed LEU),this 700MW variant consumes SEU(slightly enriched uranium)
In a written reply in LOK SABHA,former energy minister informed that cost of operating indian PHWRs is even lower than korean 1000MW reactors.(I can quote LOK SABHA proceedings,in case you wish to verify the data)
He also went on to say-
"We have designed 900MW light water reactors,with passive safety features- however no decision has been taken by the central govt to install them"

The biggest issue with all projects(whether in India or Pakistan) is the rather stupid public perception(by the ignorant) that projects like nuclear submarines, reactors..weapons.. or aircraft programs.. Can be churned out like bottles of coke on a factory.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The biggest issue with all projects(whether in India or Pakistan) is the rather stupid public perception(by the ignorant) that projects like nuclear submarines, reactors..weapons.. or aircraft programs.. Can be churned out like bottles of coke on a factory.

Hi,
I cant agree anymore! you are again right! People with no experience think that making reactors or for that matter any engineering project is just a piece of cake(especially on a commercial scale)! However ,people must realize that these projects especially projects dealing with metallurgical research require decades to reach maturity!- a country with no research background will find it extremely diffcult to design systems and believe me oscar, no other country possesing such critical tech will give you the IPRs(regardless of how citizens perceive that country).I mean chinese will never part away with the "metallurgical process" by which they created their SCBs. And any pakistani thinking on these lines is simply fooling himself,similar argument can be extrapolated for india and russia

 

[SQ8]

Hi,
I cant agree anymore! you are again right! People with no experience think that making reactors or for that matter any engineering project is just a piece of cake(especially on a commercial scale)! However ,people must realize that these projects especially projects dealing with metallurgical research require decades to reach maturity!- a country with no research background will find it extremely diffcult to design systems and believe me oscar, no other country possesing such critical tech will give you the IPRs(regardless of how citizens perceive that country).I mean chinese will never part away with the "metallurgical process" by which they created their SCBs. And any pakistani thinking on these lines is simply himself,similar argument can be extrapolated for india and russia

They rarely do. However, as long as they can provide SCBs to order.. that is all that is needed.

 

[amardeep mishra]

They rarely do. However, as long as they can provide SCBs to order.. that is all that is needed.

@Oscar
This kind of approach might be good if you are interested in somehow assembling the engine and producing a requisite number of engines/year etc, but this kind of approach will fall flat if suppose some fine day you decided to develop your own SCBs- because this approach doesnt enable the industry to design an engine it in fact does nothing more than enabling the local industry to remain a mere assembler- case of BHEL is open for speculation where BHEL has "huge experience" in assembling american designed GTs but they havent designed their own! On the other hand GTRE(we can criticize however we want) that has invested billions in the research facility and allied research has actually "designed" one such engine

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar
This kind of approach might be good if you are interested in somehow assembling the engine and producing a requisite number of engines/year etc, but this kind of approach will fall flat if suppose some fine day you decided to develop your own SCBs!

True, but then again that desire for that "fine day" does not exist. At least not with the limited funds available.
Which is why I'll state what I did earlier to your queries on how does Pakistan achieve what it claims without any visible infra for it. It lies in the core ideaology of R&D here.

Step 1: Check the free markets(both white and black) for the capability/item
Step 2: If the Item is available buy from the cheapest source
Step 3: Can the item be bought again without issues? If yes, proceed to END

If NO:
Step 4: Can the item be reverse engineered at home?
YES:
Step 5: Reverse engineer the item
NO:
Step 6: Can the item be given for reverse engineering to another supplier(who can supply freely)?
YES: Give item to supplier, wait for product. END

NO: What does the item do? Can some information on its function be found which another supplier can be asked to replicate?
YES: Step 7: Give order and coordinate with supplier for custom alternative to item
NO: Skip item/capability.. look for alternatives END
END

 

[amardeep mishra]

True, but then again that desire for that "fine day" does not exist. At least not with the limited funds available.
Which is why I'll state what I did earlier to your queries on how does Pakistan achieve what it claims without any visible infra for it. It lies in the core ideaology of R&D here.

@Oscar
My comment wasnt entire directed at pakistan,it was a general statement that holds good for india too,however india happens to have a plethora of research going on in various streams.And i took the case of BHEL just to highlight my case(it should also be noted that BHEL file 450 patents a year- their patent footprint is in fact larger than DRDO!)

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar
My comment wasnt entire directed at pakistan,it was a general statement that holds good for india too,however india happens to have a plethora of research going on in various streams.And i took the case of BHEL just to highlight my case(it should also be noted that BHEL file 450 patents a year- their patent footprint is in fact larger than DRDO!)

As I said before, we cannot equate the two states in terms of thinking or requirements

 

[Donatello]

True, but then again that desire for that "fine day" does not exist. At least not with the limited funds available.
Which is why I'll state what I did earlier to your queries on how does Pakistan achieve what it claims without any visible infra for it. It lies in the core ideaology of R&D here.

Step 1: Check the free markets(both white and black) for the capability/item
Step 2: If the Item is available buy from the cheapest source
Step 3: Can the item be bought again without issues? If yes, proceed to END

If NO:
Step 4: Can the item be reverse engineered at home?
YES:
Step 5: Reverse engineer the item
NO:
Step 6: Can the item be given for reverse engineering to another supplier(who can supply freely)?
YES: Give item to supplier, wait for product. END

NO: What does the item do? Can some information on its function be found which another supplier can be asked to replicate?
YES: Step 7: Give order and coordinate with supplier for custom alternative to item
NO: Skip item/capability.. look for alternatives END
END

As long as it gets the job done, i am not sure why this method is not okay?

You cannot compare a nation of 180 million people with a nation of 1.2billion. For their size, they have a shameful R&D in any case. We better focus on more important issues.

 

[amardeep mishra]

As long as it gets the job done, i am not sure why this method is not okay?

You cannot compare a nation of 180 million people with a nation of 1.2billion. For their size, they have a shameful R&D in any case. We better focus on more important issues.

Hi @Donatello!
I dont think i was comparing the two countries for i know both are entirely different ,what i was alluding to was however entirely different.I was merely bringing the issue of designing a nuke sub into perspective and writing my observations(again based on my engineering experience) against the comments of a few pakistanis who believe designing a nuke sub is a piece of cake! I was also flabbergasted by the sheer fallacy of the arguments used by a few pakistani members.What really boggles my mind,is how can someone(with obvious lack of knowledge) conclude as ludicrous as this- " running without learning to walk"- here i mean how can one design a nuclear submarine without designing reactor and ALLIED SYSTEMS
One must understand that there should exist INDUSTRY!

 

[SQ8]

One must understand that there should exist INDUSTRY!

When you can afford it, and on a priority basis...

 

[Donatello]

Hi @Donatello!
I dont think i was comparing the two countries for i know both are entirely different ,what i was alluding to was however entirely different.I was merely bringing the issue of designing a nuke sub into perspective and writing my observations(again based on my engineering experience) against the comments of a few pakistanis who believe designing a nuke sub is a piece of cake! I was also flabbergasted by the sheer fallacy of the arguments used by a few pakistani members.What really boggles my mind,is how can someone(with obvious lack of knowledge) conclude as ludicrous as this- " running without learning to walk"- here i mean how can one design a nuclear submarine without designing reactor and ALLIED SYSTEMS
One must understand that there should exist INDUSTRY!

Hi,

No one can learn to run without learning to stand upright first. However, in case of Pakistan, a full fledged industry is not needed. If the total expected demand is , say, 30 naval nuclear reactors in India, in Pakistan, it is 3-5. It makes sense to have a full blown R&D for 30, but not 3 because the cost and time constraints are not our friends, unless we are a developed nation and have money to throw about. Since any possible naval nuclear reactors will have input from China (for obvious reasons) we can build allied components and then gradually learn along the way. No need to start from scratch.

We make our own bullets, armor, artillery shells, guns, etc because we need them in thousands. So million dollars worth of investment makes sense. We need to churn out 200-250 JF-17s, so it makes sense to build as many components in house, and thus the million dollar investments are justified. But if we are going to only build a handful of nuclear reactors, does it really warrant a full blown program when the funds could be utilized elsewhere, and above all, as Oscar said, the final task accomplished without wasting time?

Pakistani or Indian members, they'll gossip.........tell me how much did India learn from 30 years of investment in LCA or Arjun? The truth is, India cannot build a fighter aircraft from ground up completely on it's own.....in the end...India ends up buying Sukhois/Rafale/Mirage/Migs.......same with the T-90 & T72 in lieu of Arjun.

Building weapons is expensive and only feasible when the market is big enough and for a cash strapped country like Pakistan.....it is difficult. Frankly, i would want Pakistan to focus on AIP subs...they are equally as deadly for our role as any nuclear submarine.

When you can afford it, and on a priority basis...

Agreed, as i just mentioned, there has to be a credible market. European aerospace giants (read de Havilland, Fairy Aircraft, AVRO, Hawker Siddley, British Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Sud Aviation etc) went into mergers,demergers, spin offs and consolidations, because their markets kept shrinking and thus they could no longer remain in business. When their profitable, advanced economies couldn't sustain the running, how can a third world nation do it, when bigger priorities are there, of which we are reminded on a weekly basis?

Heck, the most majestic piece of machinery to ever grace the sky, the Concorde, was a Anglo/French project since no one company could do it on it's own.

 

[The SC]

Here are some small and efficient nuclear reactors that can be used for a submarine.

Most of these are made by corporations some big ones and some are very small. So how can anyone think or decide in his mind that a nation that masters nuclear energy can not make one on its own?

The USS Nautilus, the world’s first nuclear submarine, is commissioned by the U.S. Navy.

The Nautilus, named for Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea creation, was constructed under the direction of U.S. Navy Captain Hyman G. Rickover, a brilliant Russian-born engineer who joined the U.S. atomic program in 1946. In 1947, he was put in charge of the navy’s nuclear-propulsion program and began work on an atomic submarine. Regarded as a fanatic by his detractors, Rickover succeeded in developing and delivering the world’s first nuclear submarine years ahead of schedule. In 1952, the Nautilus‘ keel was laid by President Harry S. Truman, and on January 21, 1954, first lady Mamie Eisenhower broke a bottle of champagne across its bow as it was launched into the Thames River at Groton, Connecticut. Commissioned on September 30, 1954, it first ran under nuclear power on the morning of January 17, 1955.

Much larger than the diesel-electric submarines that preceded it, the Nautilus stretched 319 feet and displaced 3,180 tons. It could remain submerged for almost unlimited periods because its atomic engine needed no air and only a very small quantity of nuclear fuel. The uranium-powered nuclear reactor produced steam that drove propulsion turbines, allowing the Nautilus to travel underwater at speeds in excess of 20 knots.

In its early years of service, the USS Nautilus broke numerous submarine travel records and in August 1958 accomplished the first voyage under the geographic North Pole. After a career spanning 25 years and almost 500,000 miles steamed, the Nautilus was decommissioned on March 3, 1980. Designated a National Historic Landmark in 1982, the world’s first nuclear submarine went on exhibit in 1986 as the Historic Ship Nautilusat the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut.

The USS Nautilus Commissioned | 100 Classics Challenge

This was in the '50s !!!