Amur class submarine can be extended to fire Brahmos

Sev,

I meant Akula SSBN, that pic was meant to give a closer look for that silo hatches just to show as to the similarity of the hatches on the Akula SSBN and the Amur 1650 hatch opened in the picture.

That’s the Sankt Petersburg, which is 677 Lada-class, it’s for the Russian Navy, noone else. 🙂

Well I don’t have pictures of those models, but in the meanwhile I’d say enjoy this:
The launch of the first Lada/Amur (some time ago) it was commissioned yesterday:

note the small stabilizers on the tail. Which Akula do you mean Blackcat? Schchuka-B? or the Typhoon SSBN? It seems most logical you are asking for Typhoon, so as for that, I don’t know. No one will probably know except for the designers. I think Garry gave some good possible reasons and maybe we should be looking in that direction for the “true” answer too. But indeed it’s easier to steer from that place ON A SURFACE VESSEL. I think submarines aren’t steered by sight(never saw a helmsman at a wheel on top of a conning tower), hence all the helmsman has to do is follow the orders.
I think the balancing might be the good point. The center of Floatation (center of longitudinal stability) might be oddly placed on this submarine. We don’t know the weight of the reactors, but I suppose the weird shape of Typhoon might indeed cause this center of floatation to be oddly placed, hence the reactors might have indeed caused a problem… Not sure though. I think twenty of those huge missiles just to counter the weight of those two reactors would be a bit exaggerated.

I relooked at the photo google posted and it looks like it is very long. So it is possible that there is two plugs, one for the VLS and one for the AIP.

Do u have any other pic of the same model??

anyone have got more from that South African exhibition?

Severe,
is that upfront silos on the Akulas also meant for that better handling of the sub?

Gary, the tanker and merchant acommodations are not placed there for the sailing. I admit it’s easier to steer a ship from there, but the true reason for that placing is: They’re merchant ships. Basically a merchant ship has holds, if you put an accomodation on the ship, the hold below is not easily accesable, for example with bulkcarriers. Therefor, they look for a space inside the hull that is not usable, namely the engineroom. So, when they place the accomodation on top of the engineroom they have the largest accessability of holds, more safety (no accomodation on top your tanks for tankers, no pipelines having to go through or around your accomodation also for tankers), hence best use of the hull and on top of that, it makes it cheaper, because you evade costs of extra pipelines and your funnel can be placed on top of your engineroom, avoids extra costs again.

For Typhoon, that Ice argument might indeed be correct. It has an enforced bow and I suppose they just come with their bow first through the ice, creating a whole and smaching upon the ice, hence if your sail would be in front, it might hit the ice. Now, with the sail in the back, it might just come through the hole, while the bow makes the space to come through.
Compartments? Don’t know.
The mounting of the weapons of Papa, Charlie etc. is easily explanable by the fact that their VLS modules are mounted under an anlge, if you put it behind your sail, the missile will hit the sail when launched :$

I relooked at the photo google posted and it looks like it is very long. So it is possible that there is two plugs, one for the VLS and one for the AIP.

Is it a good idea to build a very large conventional design SSGK? Because it looks like this is a SSG more than just a pure SSK.

I have read that the Typhoon has its missiles forward to balance the weight of the reactors at the rear, but I have heard that the escape module of the Typhoon required it. I have also heard that the idea of putting all of the weapons forward together had benefits in compartmentalising the sub but I don’t know the true reason.

With missiles in the outer hull SSGNs like the Charlie and the Echo and the Oscar and Papa have had weapons mounted behind, beside and in front of the sail for some time and often weapons like LAMs are mounted in front of the sail too.

I guess there are navigation advantages to havin the sail up front, but then often lare ships like oil tankers and cargo ships have the control room at the rear near the rudder and props. I have also heard the Typhoon has its reinforced sail further back to reduce damage when surfacing through Ice and the position allows surfacing through thicker ice than it would otherwise be able to surface through. Again I am not sure if this is true or not.

It’s some kind of Russian habit to put all the weapons in front, same with Talwar, Kirov class, Typhoon SSBN… It’s a weird habit though 😀
Anyway, the US LAI SSN have their VLS inserted in front too (this also eliminated the slight Trim of the early LA class SSNs, because these were designed with space for such a VLS insertion). I think it gives a better field of fire, not to damage the sail.
I think the Hatches on the Typhoon SSBN, are as high as Amur’s SAIL… Not equal in size with the hatches of this Amur model.
Anyway, the real name of Typhoon is indeed Akula, yet the real name of Akula is Shchuka-B and not Bars. Bars is one of the units (K480)and hence they have called it the Bars class. Normally they pick the first of class, someone must have thought this was the first of class…

As for placing the AIP inside, the Swedes have done it with the Näcken class too. Just cut the thing in half and put the module in between.

As for the AIP shift forward. It’s probably for stability. The aft part is angled inwards, if you would take a look from above you would see a “V-shaped” slice. This slice gives less upward force from the water. In short, if you put the heavy weight of a AIP in there, it will receive less carrying power, hence cause a trim and stress on your hull. You can of course play with that trim, but I’m not sure if you want your forward ballast tanks filled up half to keep your sub stable when you are in an emergency… They might have thought about having a heavier piece forward, like the Sonar and weapons and afterwards found out that it would be too light.

Garry,

yes sorry, I should have mentioned that , but i think I’ve been writing Bars for Akulas … anyway those who don like Russian names, learn with me ….

Russian SSN Bars (western designation Akula)
Russian SSBN Akula (western designation Typhoon)

(Added later)
as Severovdvinsk noted, The Russian name of the western designated Akula is Shchuka-B and not Bars. But Bars is the name of 1st (or 2nd?) unit of that class and hence getting to be designated as Bars class.

Austin,

I dont think there might be a possiblity for that U-212 or U-214, but then if we are going in for Amurs its for that wider sea-denial capablity and a high speed hunt is off (atleast one can say that) …so maybe smaller U-212 or U214 comes in, but then they too dont have any 30 knots so as to hunt any surface ships or any SSN , so I pretty much dont get their role in IOR as we dont need any inshore hugging fast running hunter whose maximum speed is still below 25 knots.

So we can just go in for Scorpene (but w/o any French Armaments, that has to be made a must!) and standardise it with Klub and other weapons, but I really dont think if Klub finally settle in with IN, if Torpedoes would be a good choice unless its the 650 mm Russian monster, coz the Klub series can do that sub surface hunting at 40+Km so maybe the sub will mostly be filled with an all Klub family? ….. So at that rate IN sub fleet will in future will be having the offesnive weapons in the form of Klub family (sub-surface) and Brahmos

Also another one …… I have market 5 Silos, so that mean 10 Silos for Brahmos???…… but the other one shows or mentions as 8 silos, either I have mistaken it or there is something else

And yes another news being that Prithvi-III naval variant was tested today. The tested missile is reported to be 250Km and is said to have been test fired from a specially build underwater canister!

So I guess things are moving forward for the indian ATV. But not the least impressed with that 250Km! ……. atleast 700Km should be there for any naval version of the ballistic missile Prithvi. But then its that 750Kg thats gonna shake the arse and thats cannot be matched by the cruise missile coz of which I am a supported for thesemissile. But I want the original configuration of Prithvi (1000 Kg warhead) to be developed into SLBM with atleast 700Km.

.

Austin,

Also how are they going to insert a AIP ( fuell cell) system in to the submarine needs to be seen

Actually I think they had already finished their work on an Amur with an AIP module but could not progress much for lack of funds for building subs and also for that Kristal-E or something named 2nd Generation Electro-Chemical Generators (or what the west call as Fuel Cells) …. now the Amur as a whole did not progres much coz after 90 there was little funds available to develop completely thie 2nd generation AIP, which I think should have got a boost if the Indian political bosses did not went around searching the west and insted had put-in a joint effort to develop with the Russians their AIP, which in all probablity will have been a full TOT with later-on developing their 3rd Generation AIP (which they intend to poull out b4 2010) with nearly 100 days of submerged endurance.

and here a pic of the Amur1650 with AIP module and the module in detail….. and plz note that Amur is also built with different modules and one module is that AIP and for a damn good undewater sea-denial one 2 modules would be needed , yes –
– AIP module &
– Brahmos Amur Complex module

.

you posted that the missile silos are in the front of the sub rather than in the rear like most other subs.

Garry any distinct advantage in having the missile silos in the front rather than back as seems to be the norm.

here are some more pic, a close up of the above and the silo hatches of the Akulas in the opened position.

Hey Blackcat… you should mention to the less well informed that the pictures of the “AKULA” sub with its hatches open is what the Russians call the AKULA, not what the west calls the AKULA which is rather different… The Sub the West calls the Akula is a nuke attack sub (SSN) while the sub the Russians call Akula is a ballistic missile sub (SSBN) that the west calls the Typhoon Class. You will notice from the pictures you posted that the missile silos are in the front of the sub rather than in the rear like most other subs.

Is it going to be Amur OR Scorpene, or Amur AND Scorpene? six each or three each?
Does the IN plan to acquire 12 new subs apart from their indegenous diesel sub project (apart from the ATV)?
Or all these still speculation/ negotiation.

The Indian Navy has planned to expand its conventional submarine fleet by 2025 to 24 conventional subs from the present 14 subs ( i assume 10 Kilo and 4 Type 1500-209 ) , Now this plan has been approved b the government , As part of Project-75 , The Indian Navy plans to Build 12 scorpene class submarine ( probably 6 of the original scorpene design and 6 a modified ones ) , Negioation for Scorpene has completed with Armaris , and the decision has to be taken by the CCSA , Its only a matter of time that the deal will be approved since every thing has been finalised.
Now continuing with the same 24 subs program , As part of Project-78 the IN plans to build a Modified/Indianised/MKI’sd version of the Amur class submarine , Blackcat has done some detailed explaination of the planned amur with the brahmos complex in this thread, Now the original plan was to build an equal no of Amur ie 12 , but lately that has been scaled down to just 6-8 subs , also there has been some noises on the Type-214 class subs being procured which is highly unlikely considering HDW is a blacklisted company in India , to the best of my knowledge coz of the HDW scandal and considering the clout the Russian lobby has in India , the planned purchase of MKI’sd amur is a forgone conclusion ( capability wise Amur itself is a very good subs matched by any standard ) , Besides Mazagoan dock being involved with the scorpene construction , A private sector Engineering Giant L&T will be given the resposibility of construction of the Amur class , L&T has been involved with many a defence project in India.

Besides as you are aware all the 10 Kilos are being upgraded , with the upgrade includes the capibility to Fire LACM (Klub ) , also the T-209-1500 are being upgraded with ned sonar, periscope, decoys etc .

The ATV is a different project altogether with a planned 3-5 of the class being built , will be the main pillar of Indias second strike capability , also the lease of Akula class(1- 2 )subs are being considered.

Blackcat Good work dude .

Is it going to be Amur OR Scorpene, or Amur AND Scorpene? six each or three each?

Does the IN plan to acquire 12 new subs apart from their indegenous diesel sub project (apart from the ATV)?

Or all these still speculation/ negotiation.

Regards.

Now a reason for the delay in the building of Amurs can also be attributed to this development (or speculation , as u can say) as PJ-10 was intended as a weapon platform for tri-services which included its launch platform from Sea, Air and land, but a point which was not noted was the sub-surface launch of the same. And the platform which could host India’s first sub-sea launched Brahmos PJ-10 could be ….. this Amur (?), which still is in its development stage.

This will quickly fill in a void with its firepower before the ATV come in – but Bars will be entering earlier than Amur, if its on its way – Russia had earlier too made very customised and even a fully new platform (An-32) for Indian Defence services, so this won’t be a surprise on that front. But surely could be one, if the displayed one is actually the one intended, as that seldom got any real attention.

This could also mean a sub-sea launch of the PJ-10 would be there before Bars set sail from the top of the world and Amur before it get into service.

here are some more pic, a close up of the above and the silo hatches of the Akulas in the opened position. The second one will give u a good measure of its size.

.

k let me repost it as to the Amur thread …. hope u guys dont mind.ty
—————————————–
Now let me also get this one over here which I think, I had missed on earlier occations. So though y not post it here now again my renewed intrest for the Brahmos Amur Complex has given me this , and Victor, do u got any other pic of that model?

But if I’m not wrong, I think what i found out was that, during DefExpo’04 Rubin did display their new Amur or say the Brahmos Amur Complex! …… and that largely went unnoticed???

below are some pictures – two from Harry’s collection and the other one that of Rupak’s (if I am not wrong) collection when he put up his collection on some temp site during the days when DefExpo’04’ was going on.

the first thing that I always had circling my mind has been the incompatiblity of that Amur 950 and Amur 1650 to what I had in my mind to the size and shape of the two members of the Amur family. But it had to make a force landing as Harry reported it as Amur 950 and Amur 1650 which I guess was in tune with what was displayed over there. And I guess Harry, I had asked u if u had any better close-up pictures of that Amur model (and Gorshkov), earlier too. But plzzz this time check again if u got any other pictures of the Amur model —- though a preferrable one would have been be a bit more topper view.

If u guys check out the models namey the displayed 950 and 1650, then it (atleast for me) don’t match up to whatever figures I’ve got for these two. With the one mentioned as 950 not even close to the 950 (from my POV). Also from the two pictures, the one that Rupak (?) took did not have the placard ‘Amur 950’ placed in front of it, which I think is a modified Amur 1650. Where as the later-on (?) pictures of that model show that Placard, naturally binding that model firmly as Amur 950 in which, we as of now did had no great intrest. Now was that intended for misleading or say to make it stay from pyring eyes w/o actually putting cover??? ……. was it a managed affair or someone misplaced it ??? ….. well I don’t know, Hope Harry and others would be able to throw some light over his (if any) discussion with the guys at the Rubin’s Stall. Now was there a reason for Rubin to display the Amur950 when the Indian Navy’s clear definition for sea-denial meant a real capable SSK??? ….. well i guess not, untill and unless Indian Navy had any immediate needs for smaller subs meant for the role thats intended for Amur 950.

In the said Amur 950, which I think is a modified Amur 1650 ….
– u can see some ‘hump’ which has been given a good smoothing finish for keeping the hydrodynamics to the best.
– u can also see somewhat top-to-bottom cylindrically shaped ‘vaccum’ , 5 of them, in-line.
– u can also see a hatch opened right on top of one of that silo or Silo number 4 as I’ve designated it for ease.

Now my speculation of that model being a modified Amur 1650 is also based on these things, coz the cylindrically shaped top-to-bottom affair has not been seen on any earlier figures, but don’t know if 950 is said to have any such thing. The hump on its back if considered to be a meter high would make the PJ-10 with its 9m length fit in very well considering that the height of the Hull is 8.2 meters for Amur1650. But if this actually is a modified Amur1650, then it could well be having 10 Silos in 2 rows with a meter and more (?) to spare between these rows for passage. Also the hatch that can be seen opened directly above and in line with one of the speculated silo does not seem like a regular rescue one. But it looks more like the missile silo hatch with a rectangular outside and a circular shell attached from the bottom …….

now thats what I felt like from my observations and is bound to be terribly wrong, if someone can throw more light on what I feel is a modified Amur 1650. Or it could also be truly the Amur-950 with 5 VL silo, but then with a hull height of 6.4m , accomodating PJ-10 class or the Klub-class would need nearly 3 m hump on its back, which is not the case here.

So I’d like to take my view of it being actually a modified Amur1650 with VL silos, which intentionally slipped-off the media during the expo, untill somone put more info on that model and put to rest what I believe as to what it is.

below pictures of –
the std Amur-1650;
Sectional drawing from Rubin’s site for that very closer view;
amur model which I believe is actually an Amur-1650 with Brahmos complex;
Project-750 hope its Amur 750.

.

Picture courtesy of JIDR. Seems like a rather unwieldy extension; why not just fire it through the torpedo tubes?

Firing weapons through the torpedo tubes is not exactly ideal… it takes up space in the front of the sub or displaces other torpedos. It can be damaged during handling to put it into the tube. and of course while you are intending to fire a Brahmos you can’t fire torpedos because the tubes are being used. Having seperate vertical tubes means they are always ready for launch, they don’t take up space in the nose of the vessel that would otherwise be used for other weapons and you can launch a full salvo of torpedos as well as Brahmos (I am not suggesting that that is likely but if you launch a few Brahmos missiles at a target and an enemy vessel nearby detects it you might need some defensive torpedos and torpedo tube launched decoys in the water as quickly as possible… with seperate tubes that is more likely.)

There is also the minor point that the vertical tubes don’t require the sub to manouver to point the missiles toward the target area… in shallow waters that might be a problem.

Also how are they going to insert a AIP ( fuell cell) system in to the submarine needs to be seen , Its highly unlikely that future IN submaine will be without an AIP system

I have heard that the Russians want both an AIP and Yakhont in their Amurs so it is probably possible.

Seems to me like a far better solution than the hump back amur we have heard few days back , stability and related issue of the extended Amur has been taken in to account , The induction of Amur in to the Indian Navy is just a foregone conclusion , IN is negioting with the russian for the licenced constuction of the 6 + Amur class submarine , to increase the strength of its submarine feet and down the line to replace Kilo’s , Amur looks like a good replacement for the kilos , Also how are they going to insert a AIP ( fuell cell) system in to the submarine needs to be seen , Its highly unlikely that future IN submaine will be without an AIP system , Also another aspect of the Scorpene submarine is how they will carry Bhramos with them , considering that Bhramos is such an important weapon system for the IN , any Prime platform be it surface ships or subs without Bhramos is highly unlikely , I wonder if its possible to extend Scorpene to have a Bhramos plugin module to fit into it , considering that the whole Scorpene subs are constructed in a modular way