BARC May Develop Over 200MW Nuclear Reactor for Future Indian Navy S5 Ballistic Missile Subs, More Than Initially Planned 190MW

BARC May Develop Over 200MW Nuclear Reactor for Future Indian Navy S5 Ballistic Missile Subs, More Than Initially Planned 190MW


India's next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the S5 Class, may be equipped with a more powerful nuclear reactor than initially planned, according to sources familiar with the program.

This development suggests a significant enhancement in the capabilities of India's future underwater nuclear deterrent.

The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has been developing a 190-megawatt (MW) pressurized light-water reactor (PWR) fueled by enriched uranium for the S5 submarines.

These submarines are projected to have a submerged displacement exceeding 13,000 tons. However, emerging information indicates that this reactor may be upgraded to meet the evolving operational demands of the S5 Class.

While the 190MW reactor is nearing completion and is considered adequate for the initial S5 submarines, particularly for their typical slow and stealthy operational profile.

The Indian Navy, working alongside BARC, is reportedly exploring the possibility of an even more potent reactor. This move is motivated by the anticipated need to power advanced weapons systems and technologies that could be integrated into future S5 submarines, requiring a greater electrical power supply.

The development of more powerful reactors, often entail advancements in areas like fuel efficiency, core design, and safety mechanisms.

It is expected that the first group of S5 submarines will utilize the 190MW reactor. However, subsequent groups could feature a more powerful nuclear power plant, contingent on the successful development of the new reactor design.

The Navy's plan is to build the S5 Class in pairs, with each pair incorporating gradual improvements and updates. This approach allows for the incorporation of new technologies and reactor enhancements over time.

Each S5 Class group is anticipated to be distinct from its forerunner, ensuring the fleet maintains its position at the forefront of naval technology. The adoption of a new, stronger reactor in later groups is a potential aspect of this strategy.

Interestingly, a modified version of the same 190MW reactor is also slated for use in India's planned nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). These SSNs, with a submerged displacement of approximately 8,000 tons, require a reactor optimized for speed and maneuverability, highlighting the adaptability of BARC's reactor technology.

Discussions are ongoing regarding the extent of the power increase needed. Preliminary indications suggest it could surpass the 200MW threshold. While technically achievable, the integration of a larger reactor will depend on the submarine's internal capacity and potential structural modifications. As a result, the development and integration of a new reactor could take considerable time, possibly appearing in the second or third group of S5 Class submarines, post-2040.
 
Why is India not fast-tracking its nuclear submarine programme? India has dropped the plan of a 3rd carrier, so you have enough funds now for nuclear submarines. Speed up. China is increasing its might day by day. India has to work fast. Come out from the lethargic mindset.
 
Why is India not fast-tracking its nuclear submarine programme? India has dropped the plan of a 3rd carrier, so you have enough funds now for nuclear submarines. Speed up. China is increasing its might day by day. India has to work fast. Come out from the lethargic mindset.
These are nuclear submarines, not the regular ones. It takes time to build these submarines. Earlier, BARC and the naval dockyard were busy with Arihant-class subs. It was the first time they were building indigenous subs, that too nuclear SSBNs. And again, these S5 subs are 14k-ton subs, which is still a first for BARC and the naval dockyard to build—these big subs and such big reactors. And on top of that, this project hasn't gotten CCS approval yet, and maybe in 2025, they will get approval when all the necessary technology has been mastered.
 
If this reactor can generate more than 200 MW of power, then why don't we use this in our aircraft carriers, in a two-reactor-per-carrier configuration?
 
I think it is 220 MW (PHWRs) Bharat small reactor, which will reduce development time and be sufficient too.
 
The 190MW is more than sufficient for the SSN and SSBN submarines based on the size and need. In future if we are building even more larger submarines then maybe we can develop a more powerful reactor but it will be very expensive and take a longer time.
 
MW (Mega Watts). Power.
Nuclear reactor doesn't make electricity. It produces heat energy by Nuclear fusion reactions. After that the heat energy used to produce steam and that steam operates turbine. That turbine is coupled with a alternator and that alternator produces electricity. So there is considerable loss between thermal energy produced and electricity generated.
 
The question is also how efficient it will be. If one has to refuel it every 5 years, then it is not efficient. BARC is doing a poor job even in this. They should make a reactor which will not need refueling for at least 20 years. American sub reactors only need refueling after 40 years. And then, that is old tech of the Americans. Their newest reactors may be going on for 100 years. BARC is still far, far behind.
 
If this reactor can generate more than 200 MW of power, then why don't we use this in our aircraft carriers, in a two-reactor-per-carrier configuration?
In the long run, this would be a consideration. However, as the Charles de Gaulle has shown, two 190 MW reactors on a 40,000-ish ton carrier is slightly underpowered.

If the Navy does decide on nuclear power besides EMALS for IAC-III (which would likely displace around 75,000 tons in this case), then we might end up using either four 190 MW reactors, or three of the more powerful reactors mentioned here.

Still, such a combination is still the better part of two decades away.
 
The question is also how efficient it will be. If one has to refuel it every 5 years, then it is not efficient. BARC is doing a poor job even in this. They should make a reactor which will not need refueling for at least 20 years. American sub reactors only need refueling after 40 years. And then, that is old tech of the Americans. Their newest reactors may be going on for 100 years. BARC is still far, far behind.
Um, the newest US reactors used on the Ford-class and newer Virginia-class have a 40-45 year life, not a 100-year life, atleast based on what is known in the public space.
 
I think it is 220 MW (PHWRs) Bharat small reactor, which will reduce development time and be sufficient too.
The Bharat Small Reactor may not be suitable for naval use. Remember that there is a fair bit of difference between a land-based reactor and one used on a ship.
 
This 190MW power plant should be used as Bharat Small Modular Reactor (SMR) for nuclear power generation in the country by private sector.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
4,128
Messages
45,005
Members
2,875
Latest member
Torq Times
Back
Top