Is the Navy’s newest sub worth the price?

http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/tag/ins-chakra/

Pravin Sawhney.

Just when the Russian nuclear-powered Akula-II submarine joins the Indian Navy as INS Chakra on a 10-year lease at a cost of over $one billion, the moot question is: does it contribute to India’s sea-based nuclear deterrence?

To put matters in perspective, India in 1988 had procured the Soviet Charlie I class nuclear attack submarine, renamed INS Chakra on a three-year lease. The vessel came without strategic weapons, with the sole purpose of familiarising naval personnel on training and maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines. The rules of engagement spelt out that INS Chakra would not be used in war. The hidden part of the deal was that Soviets would help India in its indigenous Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), both materially and intellectually. While the promised assistance to the ATV programme which culminated in the launch of 80MW nuclear reactor S-2 vessel (to be called INS Arihant on commissioning) by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 26 July 2009 came in fits and starts, the technology of the 6,000 tonne vessel is between first and second generation vintage. By comparison, the U.S. has ninth generation nuclear-powered subs which do not require refuelling throughout their lifetime.

Follow-on vessels

The Russian Akula sub, given the same name, INS Chakra comes with similar purpose and rules of engagement. Like the earlier deal, the undisclosed understanding this time is that it is part of the Gorshkov package (INS Vikramaditya) and includes Russian help in the follow-on indigenous nuclear-powered vessels. While S-2 vessel began sea-trials in January (could last 12 to 18 months), India has planned follow-on S-3 and S-4 vessels based on the S-2 design. As all three vessels have similar hull and nuclear power plant, capability enhancements will be meagre. It is only when the S-5 vessel with a new design and a powerful nuclear reactor is launched, which could be two-decades away, can India hope to have a semblance of sea-based deterrence against China. The S-2 and the coming S-3 and S-4 vessels will lack adequate capabilities in three key areas of stealth, reactor design and missile range to become a deterrent ballistic missile armed nuclear-powered submarine (SSBN) against China, which with its Jin class subs is at least four decades ahead. India’s S-2 vessel armed with 700km K-15 missile will have difficulty in even deterring Pakistan as, given its limitations, it would be required to be positioned closer to hostile shore.

Against this backdrop, a retired chief of naval staff had told me that the coming of Akula four years late, when the S-2 vessel is already undergoing sea-trials, serves little purpose. While still in office, he had written to the government to review the leasing of Akula programme. According to him, there is a case to dispense with the S-3 and S-4 vessels which will consume enormous time and finances. India, after all, is still on the technology understanding curve and not ready for production. Therefore it should leap-frog to work on S-5 vessels which would entail imagination and initiative. Given improved relations with the U.S. and France, why cannot India seek advanced reactor technology from them? Developing long range ballistic missile would have to be an indigenous effort as it comes under global restrictive regimes. Why cannot ISRO with capabilities to propel rockets up to 10,000km help DRDO make 8,000km ballistic missiles? These hard questions need to be examined to produce credible sea-based deterrence.

The writer is editor, FORCE newsmagazine