Talk:Arihant-class submarine/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ship's status

I am becoming tired of reverting edits here calling the article propaganda, so I'll leave a message here - unless you have reliable sources that the submarine is operational, don't whine about the article saying that it's still incomplete. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All know the submarine is complete with a nuclear power plant. Even Jane's mentions this, so best of luck keep dreaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Jane's article and yes, it really says that the submarine is ready (not exactly like that, but it at least gave me that impression as well). However, we have plenty of other sources saying that the submarine won't be ready for some time. We need to think about this. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Kotiwalo, the sub is not commissioned which means not operational under the IN flag but is launched and named Arihant. When it will get commissioned it will get the title INS Arihant. Now the sub is in the harbor trial stage testing the nuclear propulsion. Then during the sea trial phase the weaponry and other systems will be tested. Only after that the sub is commissioned with a ceremony and become operational.Bcs09 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you can't conduct even a harbor trial without a functional propulsion system. The term "launch" has been misapplied to Arihant, and the correct term should be Float-out, as Arihant does not yet have its reactor fitted yet and is nothing but a floating hull as this point. By78 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you smoking? The defpro article is bullshit. Read this [1]. And I warn you from indulging in vandalism. I had seen you removing India related articles and adding pro-Chinese stuff. Your history shows many such activities and the administrators or the users has to revert your edits.Bcs09 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you smoking? Your link clearly states that the reactor has not even achieved criticality yet, and nowhere does it even state that it was installed on the submarine itself. Speakin of sources, how about this [2], this [3], this [4], this [5], and finally this [6]. Now, tell me, how are harbor trials and sea trials going to be conducted without its propulsion system online? Being dragged around by tugboats doesn't count, and it at best proves that the hull is waterproof in a non-submerged state. I think the media reporting has been somewhat off on the terminologies here. Oh, by the way, before accusing me of engaging in vandalism, first prove it. I invite you to show me the examples of my vandalism, and before you do, you should check how wiki policies define vandalism. All of my edits are quite conservative with the facts, and I adhere strictly to credible sources, with generous paraphrasing just to be on the safe side; but I do make allowance for misunderstanding, seeing factual reporting standards differ around the world (sometimes widely). By78 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what. How can one conduct harbor trials and sea trials without a nuclear reactor inside it? You and defro guy is smoking weeds. lol. You make me laugh so hard. Tugboats are used to drag anything and everything that float on water. Don't expect Arihant to start the nuclear reactor go right out into the oceans. That's only after commissioning. Even then from the harbor to a safe distance at sea, it will be pulled and guided by tugboats and other ships will be providing protection. It's standard Naval practice. Have some commonsense instilled in you and don't think all others are idiots. Take your CCP agenda somewhere else. Bcs09 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. How does a submarine without its propulsion system undergo sea trials? Dead fish float but don't swim. So, enlighten me please. By78 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in reasoning with By78, he seems to do as he pleases. However Bcs09, even if By78 is biased and engages in pushing his POV, the claim that Arihant is reactorless seems credible as Indian sources have also reported on this (see : http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?title=Arihant does not have working reactor yet&artid=Wf2A1NFGj1g=&type=). Just so that it is absolutely clear, I am not supporting By78 on his quest to "quash Indian triumphalism" and I certainly think he promotes his hateful ideas off Wikipedia but I am defending the claim that Arihant is reactorless. Unless we have it from verifiable sources that Arihant has a nuclear reactor onboard, I think the article should remain as is. The reports on launch day should not be considered 100% reliable since the Indian government was particularly ambiguous with regards to the reactor being installed or not and the Indian media has a tendency to embellish and distort certain facts. Then again I suppose its better to have free media as opposed to state-controlled propaganda-spewing media that almost always distort and manipulate facts. Vedant (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, there is no hurry. Do a lot of reading on nuclear submarines and reactors and reach a conclusion. Check for videos from youtube as well. That will provide a lot of information to you on nuclear submarines and reactors. Look at the last part of express buzz. It says the fuel assembly is not introduced. This is the same thing that appeared in all the other newspapers, that the fuel will be introduced during the harbor trial phase. The harbor trial phase will include checking the reactor using another external source. Then they will introduce the fuel and test it. The next stage of trials is the sea trials during which the sub will be tested thoroughly including the noise generated etc. Then the weapons especially the K-15's will be tested from the sub. After that the sub will be commissioned into service and go on patrol. The Indian government don't bother about publicity, no wonder permission was denied for even photographs of the event to the media. They are running the project secretly for the past 30 years and only very recently that the Indian media came to know that the submarines construction has begun years ago. Bcs09 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the reactor is not working at the moment and it's like a non fueled car having a non-working engine. The only thing that is required to make it work is the fuel. Read this report which says The PWR on board the submarine will be started up after about a year. That should set aside all doubts about the reactor. It's onboard and rods need to be introduced to start the fueling process which will happen during the last phase of the harbor trial.Bcs09 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Another report from the Hindu which says “This PWR technology is very complex. We have been able to compact this reactor and pack it in the cramped space” of the hull of the submarine, Dr. Kakodkar told The Hindu from Visakhapatnam where the submarine was launched. So the reactor is alreay fitted into the submarine and the assumptions and speculation by Defpro is completely wrong.Bcs09 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another report about the submarine has this to say Just last month, an 80MW nuclear reactor, smaller than a bus, was pushed into the hull of the submarine and successfully integrated—a milestone in the project approved by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1970. By April 2009, the submarine will be launched and will begin sea trials before it is inducted into the navy. . So this clearly states the nuclear reactor was installed into the submarine prior to its launch. Bcs09 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that report is from January of last year and it also stated in that report that the submarine would be launched in April of 2009 when it was infact launched only in July. While I'd more than happily delete By78's edits if they were invalid, it appears that this one is (a rarity I must admit).Vedant (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The report was during the time when the reactor was introduced into the submarine and at that time the plan was to launch the sub in April 2009. Due to some reasons it has got delayed and was launched in July. Here we are discussing about whether the reactor is inside the submarine or not. The above article clearly states that the reactor was installed prior to its launch.Bcs09 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring over this. The recent sources say it does not have a reactor. The previous sources are out of date and it is not clear if it was a prototype or the actual vessel. They are not copy cat sources. They are sourced from two different individuals close to the project. Word it in that manner and it should be fine. Anything else is ridiculous.

" It was reported that the Arihant was still without key systems including its nuclear reactor, surveillance equipment, and ordinance. On the condition of anonymity, a nuclear scientist familiar with the project echoed this report in response to the media coverage that India had successfully launched a completed nuclear submarine."

Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent reports suggest the sub is undergoing sea trials. It astonishes me that the Indians are conducting the submarine's sea trial without any reactor installed in the sub. So it seems the India today article is indeed correct and other ones about "without nuclear reactors" are all wrong.Bcs09 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Either that or the page needs a simple update. Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An update is necessary. It's time to remove those reports from defro.Bcs09 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The reports especially by the ones like Defpro is pure stupidity. Look at the report from Hindu which was published just before the launch of the ship. It clearly states that the reactor is installed[7]. Here is the quotes from that report "The submarine is already fitted with a miniaturised nuclear-powered reactor developed by BARC at Kalpakkam, 60 km from Chennai." and also "The mini-nuclear reactor that will power the submarine has been fitted into its hull.". Now its time to remove those idiotic things from defrop to be purged off the page. We are lucky enough that Defpro did not come up with a report stating "Nuclear submarine undergoing sea trials without a Nuclear reactor fitted into it" kind of stupidity. May be they will comeup with something like "Indian nuclear submarine commissioned without nuclear reactor".lol.Bcs09 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with images and videos...

Could someone please provide some ACTUAL photos of the INS Arihant? I have looked all over the internet for actual images of the Arihant, but all I got was a bunch of computer renderings and artist conceptions. A search for videos of the launch ceremony proved equally elusive, except for this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNgUhyEYhsc&feature=PlayList&p=AD10AEC9ECF1F032&index=0). However, the video appears to depict a Soviet Foxtrot class submarine; but I am not 100% sure. Could someone clarify if the video indeed shows the real Arihant? If the Arihant has already been "launched" and revealed to the public, why is it so difficult to get some real photos? By78 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Again that's another bullshit. Those idiots in the media cannot differentiate a Foxtrot class submarine and a Arihant class nuclear submarine. No pictures of the submarine is released to the public expect for these two pictures of the Arihant [8] and [9].Bcs09 (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So it was a Foxtrot. Maybe they should have hired a military consultant. That was a major goof-off. Then again, if "those idiots in the media cannot differentiate a Foxtrot class submarine and a Arihant class nuclear submarine", then what makes them knowledgable enough to use the terms "sea trials" and "harbor trials" correctly? Perhaps they really meant to use the term float-out? By78 (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Belongs to your category.Bcs09 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Belongs to your category"... what a bizarre answer. Still you have not answered my question, and let me ask it again, "if 'those idiots in the media cannot differentiate a Foxtrot class submarine and a Arihant class nuclear submarine', then what makes them knowledgable enough to use the terms "sea trials" and "harbor trials" correctly? Perhaps they really meant to use the term float-out?". By78 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you edit the page when you cannot differentiate between an Arihant class submarine and a foxtrot class submarine? So your and the newspaper editors knowledge on submarines are the same until and unless spoon fed by someone else who knows about harbor trial and sea trials.Bcs09 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question that how Arihant can conduct "sea trials" without its propulsion system. It's a simple question, and I am still waiting for an answer. As for your question how I can edit this page without differentiating the Arihant from the Foxtrot, here is my answer: I did in fact suspect the footage was that of a Foxtrot, and my direct quote was "the video appears to depict a Soviet Foxtrot class submarine; but I am not 100% sure". The reason I was not 100% sure was that maybe the Arihant did in fact have a hull resembling perhaps an enlarged version of the Foxtrot. I didn't know for certain because, alas, I couldn't find any official photo of the Arihant with which to compare and ascertain that NDTV in fact got it completely wrong; but thanks for your help in confirming my suspicion that the footage was indeed that of a Foxtrot. Moreover, on a fundamental level, your did point out a very important matter: that is I couldn't in fact tell the difference between the Arihant and the Foxtrot. To differentiate and compare, it necessarily requires two objects, but in my case, I've only got the one (i.e. the Foxtrot), but not the other (Arihant's pictures are sure hard to come by). This simple logic dictates that you, my friend, cannot tell the difference between the Arihant and a Foxtrot either. So I guess we should be more charitable toward the folks at NDTV, as their error may not seem as grave at first blush, and I certainly would not call them "idiots" as you have done. Now, if you would please answer my question on how Arihant can conduct sea trials without its propulsion system. By78 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity you. The defro report and the copycat reports brought here by you is wrong.Bcs09 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question that how Arihant can conduct "sea trials" without its propulsion system. It's a simple question, and I am still waiting for an answer. By78 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this the picture of Arihant?

This [10] article implies that the large picture at the top shows the Arihant. Could someone help me verify? By78 (talk)

Ain't it a CCP sub with a CCP flag atop it?Bcs09 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: why does NDTV have a Chinese submarine displayed as the Arihant? By78 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Atleast you being a Chinese citizen knew about the Chinese flag. Then why the fuck did you ask the question in the first place? You must stop such trolling activities.Bcs09 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A Chinese citizen? Who knows. According to his summary for this edit, he's a commissioned officer in the PLA. Here, however, he claims to be "interested in East Asian culture and [does] speak a bit of mandarin, but [is] not Chinese." I wonder how being a PLA officer is possible without being a Chinese citizen residing in China who's proficiently fluent in Mandarin. GSMR (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

lol. He is a troll.Bcs09 (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the image itself is a moot point seeing as it was removed for copyvio. Maybe he wasn't able to contest its deletion because he was off fighting Uighurs in Xinxiang with his platoon. GSMR (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging a big no

There is no need for merging. Those two are two different submarines. The follow on class to be nearly double the size of the present one. The Follow on to the Arihant class need to be updated with more sources and more information.Bcs09 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Found New Arihant picture

Please see the link below:

http://idrw.org/?m=201201&paged=13

Scroll down to view the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.17.5 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Arihant nuclear reactor properties

Information about the nuclear reactor used in the Arihant is incorrect. Zircronium is not used as a neutron absorber for controlling reactivity in the reactor. The neutron absorption cross section of zircronium is very low (a few barnes) while actual neutron control materials have neutron cross sections (boron, cadmium, hafnium, samarium, etc.) at least 3 orders of magnitude higher. It is possible that the control rod materials in this reactor are placed inside Zircronium-alloyed tubes, which have other desirable properties including low corrosion in a pressurized water reactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nucphysics (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you any proof that what you're saying is credible? At this point it doesn't seem so self-evident. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What part of this are you doubting? I don't know about this particular reactor design, but see Zirconium alloy, Control rod#Materials used, and Neutron cross-section#Typical cross sections for some general coverage.

—WWoods (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

file:INS Arihant.png

file:INS Arihant.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/arihant-class/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/arihant-class/page/SSBN

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of ships in the class

how many submarines are they planning to have in arihant class? it is 3 or 4? within this page itself I found some conflicting information like in infobox planned is 3 while down in ships in class it is 4. as the project is still classified unlike other projects like Vikrant-class and MOD might not reveal much information about planned subs for now. so lets decide what we should add in planned is it going to 3 or 4 or nothing for now.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nicky Mathew: (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indigenous-nuclear-powered-submarine-ins-arihant-sea-trials-navy-ballistic-missile/1/406718.html) states 5 SSBNS(Not exactly Arihant Class leading to a possibility to that 'hoax' page) (http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/can-india-accommodate-the-ins-arihant/) states 4 (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/385060/indias-first-indigenous-n-submarine.html) states 3 or 4 (?) It seems that the news media is itself confused with exact numbers due to the secrecy of the project.M.srihari (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@M.srihari:yes, I saw some reports, thats why I posted my comment on 21 march 2015 in here, lets leave planned in infobox empty for now and take down ATV-3 and ATV-4 from ships in class til we see some soild media reports or official confirmation from moD.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nicky Mathew:I have no issue. M.srihari (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Navy Ship Building Centre is under Director-General Naval Projects (Visakhapatnam) and not under Hindustan Shipyard Limited

Navy Ship Building Centre is under Director-General Naval Projects (Visakhapatnam) and not under Hindustan Shipyard Limited Proof as mentioned in this "The Hindu" article http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/contract-worker-killed-in-accident-at-navy-ship-building-centre/article5764589.ece standardengineer (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The nuclear submarines are built in an entirely different facility called the Navy Ship Building Centre adjacent to HSL neither owned nor operated by HSL. standardengineer (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arihant-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130217054406/http://www.jeywin.com:80/blog/arihant-–-india’s-first-indigenous-nuclear-submarine/ to http://www.jeywin.com/blog/arihant-–-india’s-first-indigenous-nuclear-submarine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism Attempt

I noticed a vandalism attempt on this page by IP 46.235.152.212 on February 2, 2016. This was rectified immediately by another user and is now fixed. Should we consider asking for semi-protected status for this page? -- Adamgerber90 22:43, 3 Februray 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know SP status is only given when there is a lot of repeated vandalism from specific users or brigading, few occasions only will only warrant a very short-term SP(in days) and will make no difference on low traffic pages. standardengineer (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arihant-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808043941/http://www.hindu.com:80/2009/08/03/stories/2009080353810100.htm to http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/03/stories/2009080353810100.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)