Showing posts with label INDIAN NUCLEAR FORCES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INDIAN NUCLEAR FORCES. Show all posts

Thursday, March 19, 2015

FOR INDIA GOING NUCLEAR AT SEA: MURKY WATERS-NAVAL NUCLEAR DYNAMICS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

Source:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/national/going-nuclear-at-sea/ar-BBipsNc





MURKY WATERS:

NAVAL NUCLEAR DYNAMICS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN
 
@CarnegieEndow

facebook.com/

CarnegieEndowment
 
I S K A N D E R R E H M A N




More than five years have passed since India launched its first ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) in July 2009. Meanwhile, Pakistan formally inaugurated a Naval Strategic Force Command headquarters in 2012 and has declared its intent to develop its own sea-based deterrent. As India and Pakistan develop their naval nuclear forces, they will enter increasingly
murky waters. By further institutionalizing relations between their navies and by insisting on stronger transparency with regard to naval nuclear developments, both countries may succeed in adding a greater degree of stability to what otherwise promises to be a dangerously volatile maritime environment.
 

Ongoing Naval Nuclear Dynamics in South Asia


India’s pursuit of a sea-based nuclear strike
force is the next logical step in its quest for an assured retaliatory capability.
 
India has conducted a series of test firings of
Dhanush-class short-range ballistic missiles
from offshore patrol vessels. It appears that
for the Indian Navy, the Dhanush program
is a stopgap measure until the SSBN fleet
comes to fruition.
 
The submarine-based leg of India’s nuclear
triad will have a major impact on the nation’s
existing command-and-control arrangements.
 
•   To enjoy an effective sea-based deterrent vis-a-  vis China, India’s other prospective nuclear
adversary, New Delhi has to develop larger
SSBNs with greater missile carriage capacity
and more powerful nuclear reactor
 
Pakistan’s naval nuclear ambitions are
fueled primarily by the sense of a growing
conventional, rather than strategic, imbalance
between New Delhi and Islamabad.
 
 By dispersing low-yield nuclear weapons
across a variety of naval platforms,
Islamabad aims to acquire escalation
dominance and greater strategic depth and to
reduce the incentives for a preemptive strike
on its nuclear assets.


Takeaways for India and Pakistan

 
Naval nuclear operations during the Cold War hold an immense value in terms of thinking more deeply about issues such as conventional operations under a nuclear shadow, naval nuclear signaling, and escalation control

 
In order to avert misunderstanding, India’s nuclear management would gain from clearer
communication and greater transparency, particularly with regard to the Dhanush program.

As Pakistan seeks to nuclearize its fleet, it will encounter a number of challenges. Chinese assistance could provide a way for Islamabad to more rapidly alleviate some of these difficulties. Considering the potential risks, however, Beijing may wish to maintain a greater distance from Pakistan’s military nuclear enterprise.

Over the past decade, India’s and Pakistan’s coast guards have enacted a number of confidence building
measures. Going forward, decisionmakers in New Delhi and Islamabad might consider
extending initiatives to their navies as well


 

              FOR INDIA: Going Nuclear at Sea

The Indian Express
 
                                          
Going forward, the Indian navy will face three sets of nuclear challenges.

The first set is in the technological domain, as the navy struggles to acquire the capability for continuous at-sea deterrence.
 
The second set of difficulties will need to be addressed within the navy itself, as its officers begin to grapple with the importance of their service’s new nuclear role.

Finally, Indian naval planners will also have to contend with their Pakistani counterparts’ development of what can best be described as a “naval nuclear force-in-being”.

When the Arihant is finally commissioned, it will be fitted with 12 Sagarika K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The Sagarika, however, only has a strike radius of about 750 to 800 km, which many analysts rightly consider inadequate.
Indeed, with such a short range, the Arihant could not reach Islamabad, let alone China’s strategic centres.

 
The DRDO is currently working on two longer-range SLBMs: the 3,500-km range K-4, which recently underwent a successful test launch from an underwater pontoon, and the 5,000-km range K-5, which is still in the design phase. According to sources, the Arihant is fitted with four universal tube launchers, which can each carry either three K-15 missiles or one K-4 missile.

 
Observers have raised questions, however, over the compatibility of the K-4’s height with the submarine’s 10.4-m hull. If the length of the K-4 cannot be shortened, the Arihant may need to be retrofitted with a hydrodynamic outer development, or “bump.” Even if the DRDO’s engineers do succeed in squeezing the K-4 aboard, the missile’s range remains somewhat unsatisfactory.
It would require India’s nuclear submariners to operate on the northeastern fringes of the Bay of Bengal in order to effectively target China’s major metropolises, rather than within the more sanitised waters abutting India’s eastern seaboard. The K-5 is rumoured to stand at a height of about 12 m, which rules out its deployment aboard the Arihant.

 
The second major technological limitation is that of the Arihant’s nuclear reactor. Reportedly based on first- or second-generation Soviet technology, the 83-megawatt pressurised water reactor has a short refuelling cycle, thus limiting the length of the Arihant’s deterrent patrols.

 
In short, in order to enjoy an effective sea-based deterrent with regard to China, India will need to deploy larger SSBNs with greater missile carriage capacity and more powerful nuclear reactors. The fourth planned submarine in the series is projected to possess such characteristics, but it may take more than a decade for it to be successfully developed and launched, and even longer for it to be commissioned.

 
While India’s submarine fleet has been taking shape, Delhi has also conducted a series of test firings, starting in 2000, of Dhanush-class short-range ballistic missiles from surface ships. For the time being, however, it appears that the Dhanush programme is merely a stopgap measure until the SSBN fleet comes into full fruition.

 
Second, history has shown that all newly nuclear navies face some difficult tradeoffs. As India’s SSBN fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’s new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions.
As in all nuclear navies, a debate will no doubt unfold within the service as to how many resources and platforms should be devoted to the ballistic missile submarine fleet’s protection. Tough decisions may need to be made, particularly if India’s underwater environment becomes more contested. India’s nuclear command and control procedures will also almost certainly undergo a revision, as the SLBMs will be canisterised and ready for launch, rather than de-mated.
 
As India’s nuclear submarine fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’sp new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions.
© Provided by Indian Express As India’s nuclear submarine fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’sp new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions. 
            
Finally, India’s naval and nuclear planners will also have to contend with the progressive materialisation of a nuclearised Pakistani navy — albeit one with much less orthodox characteristics and undergirded by a very different nuclear posture. Indeed, Islamabad aims to eventually disperse nuclear-tipped cruise missiles across a variety of naval platforms, ranging from surface ships in the short term to conventional diesel-electric submarines in the long term. Unlike India, Pakistan’s naval nuclear ambitions are fuelled primarily by the sense of a growing conventional imbalance in the maritime domain.
By nuclearising — or by appearing to nuclearise — a large portion of their fleet architecture, Pakistani military planners hope to neuter India’s growing naval power, inject ambiguity and acquire escalation dominance in the event of a limited conflict at sea. Since Independence, Indian naval officers have been accustomed to operating within a purely conventional maritime setting.
Dealing with such a prospective adversary will no doubt necessitate a fundamental rethinking of the navy’s operational concepts. Perhaps more importantly, it will also require an effort on the part of both countries to further institutionalise the maritime component of their relations so as to ensure that in future, isolated incidents don’t spiral out of control.
 
The writer, a nonresident fellow in the South Asia Programme at the Atlantic Council, is author of the report ‘Murky Waters: Naval Nuclear Dynamics in the Indian Ocean’.
 
SLIDESHOW: India's military might
 
 
military                        
India's military might packs a mean punch
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Friday, March 13, 2015

Indian Nuclear Forces, 2012

Source:
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/4/96.full

                               




Indian Nuclear Forces, 2012
  By                                    
Hans M. Kristensen & Robert S. Norris




 

 

Abstract

In April 2012, India successfully test-launched the Agni V ballistic missile—and though the missile needs more testing and is still several years away from operational deployment, the Agni V introduces a new dynamic to the already complex triangular security relationship among India, Pakistan, and China. India is estimated to have produced approximately 520 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, sufficient for 100–130 nuclear warheads; however, not all of the material has been converted into warheads. Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery vehicles, the authors estimate that India has produced 80–100 nuclear warheads. In this article, the authors explore how the country will need even more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing.
 
India’s drive to develop a nuclear triad proceeds apace, with New Delhi developing or deploying several weapon systems to realize its goal of achieving offensive nuclear forces on land, at sea, and in the air. India took a significant step forward with the successful test-launch of the Agni V ballistic missile on April 19, 2012. With a range reportedly greater than 5,000 kilometers (3,107 miles), the Agni V can reach any target in China; however, the missile needs more testing and is still several years away from operational deployment. Nevertheless, the Agni V introduces a new dynamic to the already complex triangular security relationship among India, Pakistan, and China; a week after India’s April test-launch, Pakistan (somewhat predictably) responded by test-firing its nuclear-capable Shaheen-1A medium-range ballistic missile.

              
India is estimated to have produced approximately 520 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium (IPFM, 2011), sufficient for 100–130 nuclear warheads; however, not all of the material has been converted into warheads. Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery vehicles, we estimate that India has produced 80–100 nuclear warheads. It will need more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing. In addition to the Dhruva plutonium production reactor near Mumbai, India plans to construct a second reactor near Visakhapatnam, on the east coast. India is building an unsafeguarded prototype fast-breeder reactor at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research near Kalpakkam (about 1,000 kilometers or 620 miles south of Visakhapatnam), which will significantly increase India’s plutonium production capacity once it becomes operational. 
              

Aircraft


India has the fourth-largest air force in the world. Its fighter-bombers constitute the backbone of India’s operational nuclear strike force, and it likely assigns nuclear missions to Mirage 2000H, Jaguar IS/IB, and possibly MiG-27 aircraft.

                 
Last year, New Delhi approved an upgrade for the Indian Air Force’s 51 Mirage 2000H aircraft—an update for which the single-seat, multi-role fighter-bomber is long overdue—which is scheduled for completion by mid-2021 (Government of India, 2012c; Waldron, 2012). The aircraft are deployed at Maharajpur (Gwalior) Air Force Station with Squadrons 1 and 7 of the 40th Wing; we estimate that one of the squadrons has a secondary nuclear mission. In early 2012, two of the fighters crashed in separate incidents, reducing the Mirage 2000H force to 49. One of the aircraft crashed during a February 24 training flight near Bhind, approximately 60 kilometers (37 miles) northeast of Gwalior; the other crashed on March 5 (Government of India, 2012a). Neither accident was fatal. The cost of the Mirage upgrade has been reported as $43 million per aircraft (Waldron, 2011). 



                 
India has four operational squadrons of Jaguar IS/IB aircraft with approximately 76 aircraft; two of the squadrons may be assigned a secondary nuclear strike mission. The Jaguar, designed jointly by France and Britain, was nuclear-capable when deployed by those countries. An upgrade of India’s Jaguar fleet is scheduled for completion in December 2017 (Government of India, 2012c); it has been reported that, in addition to new engines, the upgrade will also include modernized avionics, nighttime sensors, and integrated helmet sights (Defence Now, 2011). 


                 
The domestically manufactured, Soviet-origin MiG-27 Flogger fleet, sometimes suspected of having a nuclear-strike mission, is also undergoing an upgrade (Government of India, 2012c).   In January 2012, the Indian government announced that it planned to buy 126 Rafale fighter-bombers from France, which uses its Rafale jets in a nuclear strike role (George, 2012). India intends to take delivery of 18 of the jets in ready-to-fly condition and to build the rest through Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., a state-owned company (George, 2012). The contract has not yet been finalized, but the cost is estimated at between $10 billion and $15 billion. 


                 

Land-Based  MISSILES 

India has three types of land-based missiles that may be operational: the short-range Prithvi I, the short-range Agni I, and the medium-range Agni II. The Prithvi I has been deployed for almost 15 years, but the Agni I and II, despite being declared operational, both have reliability issues that have delayed their full operational service.


                 
India has been busy growing its missile program, with four more Agni versions in progress: an Agni II+ was test-launched in 2010 but failed; the longer-range Agni III, after at least four flight-tests, remains under development; and the Agni IV may be a technology bridge to the newest type, the long-range Agni V, which had its first test-launch in April. Some of these Agni programs may serve as technology-development platforms for longer-range versions. 

                 
The bulk of the Indian ballistic missile force is comprised of three versions of Prithvi missiles, but only one of these versions, the army’s Prithvi I, has a nuclear role. Given its small size (9 meters long and 1 meter in diameter), the Prithvi I is difficult to spot on satellite images, and therefore little is known about its deployment locations. The Prithvi I is a short-range missile (up to 150 kilometers or 93 miles) and is the mainstay of the Strategic Forces Command, India’s designated nuclear weapons service. 

                 
In December 2011, India successfully test-launched its two-stage Agni I missile, which has a range of 700 kilometers (435 miles), for the eighth time—suggesting that the missile might finally have become fully operational. But a ninth test-launch scheduled for early May 2012 was postponed due to a technical glitch. 

                 
The road- or rail-launched Agni II, an improvement on the Agni I, can fly up to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) and can carry a 1,000-kilogram payload, and it takes just 15 minutes for the missile to be readied for firing. The missile has been test-fired eight times with several failures, but more recent test-flights, on May 19, 2010 and September 30, 2011, were successful, demonstrating some progress toward making the Agni II fully operational. A 2010 test-launch of an extended-range Agni II, known as the Agni II+, failed. 


                 
Still under development is India’s rail-mobile Agni III, a two-stage, solid-fuel missile with a range of more than 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles). Several years ago, an army spokesperson remarked, “With this missile, India can even strike Shanghai” (India Today, 2008). To do so, however, would require the missile to be launched from the very northeastern corner of India. After the fourth Agni III test-launch in February 2010, defense officials said that the missile was “declared operational” (Chakravarty, 2010), but before the missile can become operational with the army, it will need additional flight-testing. 


                 
The Agni IV’s first flight-test, on November 15, 2011, was a success. According to scientists at the Defense Research and Development Organization, the missile, designed to fly up to 3,500 kilometers (2,175 miles) and carry up to 1,000 kilograms, “has opened a new era” for Indian missiles (Subramanian, 2011). The Agni IV might be a “technology demonstrator” between the Agni III and V missiles, meaning that India is using it as a step toward creating the Agni V and that it will never be deployed. 


                 
India test-launched the Agni V for the first time on April 19, 2012 at a range of approximately 5,000 kilometers (3,107 miles). Although widely referred to as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a range of 5,000 kilometers does not quite meet the internationally accepted definition of an ICBM as having a range of at least 5,500 kilometers (3,418 miles). Still, the Indian government stated that the missile had a range of “more than 5,000 kilometers” (Government of India, 2012b). The Agni V needs several additional test-flights, but once it is deployed it will enable the Indian military to hold Beijing at risk for the first time. Unsurprisingly, rumors and speculation abound regarding the capability and role of the Agni V, including reports that the missile could be used to launch India satellites—or be used as an antisatellite weapon (Sharma, 2012). 

                 
Rumors are also widespread that the missile might be equipped with multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). The government did not mention a multiple-warhead capability in its announcement of the test, but when asked if India was developing a capability for an Agni V variant to hit multiple targets, Defense Research and Development Organization chief V. K. Saraswat said: “We are working in this area. It will take time for us to develop, but our work is on” (Economic Times, 2012). Some have even suggested that the Agni V would be capable of carrying up to 10 MIRVs (Deccan Herald, 2012a; IBN Live, 2012). However, there is good reason to doubt that India can or will add MIRVs to its missiles in the near future. The Agni V is estimated to be capable of delivering a payload of 1.5 tons (the same as the Agni III and IV), but India’s first- and second-generation warheads, even modified versions, are relatively heavy compared with warheads developed by other nuclear weapon states that deploy MIRVs. It took the Soviet Union and the United States hundreds of nuclear tests and 25 years of effort to develop re-entry vehicles small enough to equip a ballistic missile with MIRVs. These were expensive programs fueled by the Cold War, a security environment very different from the one that faces India. Moreover, deploying missiles with multiple warheads would invite serious questions about the credibility of India’s minimum-deterrent doctrine; using MIRVs would reflect a strategy to quickly strike many targets and would also run the risk of triggering a warhead race with India’s adversaries. 

                 

Naval Nuclear Weapons

India is developing two naval nuclear weapon systems: a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine and a ship-launched ballistic missile. 

                                                           
Table 1. 
                                               
Indian Nuclear Forces, 2012.
India’s ballistic missile submarine, the Arihant, has been under development since 1984.1 Defense Minister A. K. Antony stated in May 2012 that the Arihant would be “inducted by the middle of next year” (Deccan Herald, 2012b); Pakistan has warned previously that it views an operational Indian nuclear submarine as “destabilizing” (Times of India, 2009). The Arihant is believed to have 12 tubes designed to launch the Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile. US intelligence has reported the range of the Sagarika at more than 290 kilometers or 180 miles (US Air Force, National Air and Space Intelligence Center, 2009), but media reports widely set the range around 700 kilometers (435 miles). It is also rumored that India is developing a longer-range submarine-launched ballistic missile called the K-4 that is based on the Agni III design and supposedly has a range of more than 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles); however, such a missile would probably be too big for the Arihant to launch. 

                 
India’s Dhanush, a ship-launched ballistic missile rumored to have nuclear capability, was successfully test-launched from the Survana patrol vessel on March 11, 2011—the seventh test-launch of the missile. The utility of the Dhanush, however, is severely limited by its short range (just 350 kilometers or 217 miles) and its payload capability (500 kilograms, just half that of the Prithvi I). These restrictions raise doubts about the Dhanush’s nuclear capability; however, there is also the possibility that India has developed a smaller warhead to work within the Dhanush’s limitations.2 

                                      

Funding

This research was carried out with a grant from the Ploughshares Fund and Carnegie Corporation of New York.

 

Article Notes

References

Author biographies

Hans M. Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. His work focuses on researching and writing about the status of nuclear weapons and the policies that direct them. Kristensen is a co-author to the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook (Oxford University Press) and a frequent adviser to the news media on nuclear weapons policy and operations. Inquiries should be directed to Federation of American Scientists, 1725 DeSales St. NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC, 20036 USA; +1 (202) 546-3300. 
                 
Robert S. Norris is a senior fellow with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. His principal areas of expertise include writing and research on all aspects of the nuclear weapons programs of the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, Britain, France, and China, as well as India, Pakistan, and Israel. He is the author of Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man (Steerforth, 2002). He has co-authored the Nuclear Notebook column since May 1987.


Articles Citing This Article