VAYU Interview with Igor Vilnit, CEO Rubin Design Bureau
VAYU : It is expected that the RFP for P75(I) will be issued to foreign bidders in the near future. How confident is Rubin?
Igor Vilnit: We gave complete response to all queries of the RFI in due time. Now we are waiting for the RFP to prepare comprehensive answers to all points within the specified time frame as well. Our proposal to the Indian Navy is based on Project Amur-1650 and fully meets all customer’s requirements. In the process of this work Rubin had discussions with Indian shipyards as well as designers and manufacturers of various equipment.
A long standing cooperation ties Rubin with the Indian Navy: first it was building and delivering batches of submarines,nowadays it is a support to their service life extension. During the ship’s refits and modernisation various Indian equipment is installed in them. Owing to these activities we are fully aware of the situation in the fast developing shipbuilding industry in India. In accordance with the bidding process rules in particular and logic of Make in India programme in general, a foreign partner selection is a prerogative of Indian yards. We respect this policy. Nevertheless we have to and we will participate in international tenders announced by the Government of India and offer the customer the most competitive products and the most profitable conditions.
The lead ship of the Lada-class, ‘Saint Petersburg’, seen underway (photo: Rubin)
VAYU : Rubin is designer of nuclear and conventional submarines. Have you managed to utilise practices pertaining to nuclear shipbuilding for the benefit of non-nuclear navies and vice versa?
Igor Vilnit: This really gives us big advantage when compared with companies that work in only one of these fields. A submarine is one of the most sophisticated engineering products in the world. Irrespective of the power plant it has, be it a nuclear or non-nuclear one, basic principles of the underwater shipbuilding development remains the same. Working in two directions simultaneously, we are capable of technical solutions being practised both for nuclear and non-nuclear submarines.
As design of nuclear and non-nuclear submarines takes place within the same company, the search for new solutions, both engineering and scientific, never ceases. Our team is stable because of a steady flow of orders, and at the same time we work in constant cooperation with various construction yards and wide range of suppliers. If one link in the chain of suppliers is lost, it will take long time and will be very expensive to recover this, together with a dozen of other inter-linked OEMs. As far as we can judge, India is oriented towards similar engagement of its own industry: designers, so that the search for ideas would not stop; shipyards, so that the qualified personnel would not leave; metallurgy, because the steel used for civil shipbuilding is not suitable for submarines; suppliers of individual systems starting from the most complicated acoustics to simple pressure gauges.
VAYU : Are there any technologies which nuclear submarines borrow from conventional ones? Or does the process move in one direction only?
Igor Vilnit: Yes, there are. Power consumption restrictions onboard a dieselelectric submarine demand to resolve problems of energy efficiency faster. Until recently electric propulsion motors have been in demand for diesel-electric submarines only, so that equipment was developed just for their use. Storage batteries, essentially lithium-ion batteries, were developed for diesel-electric submarines because they are much more required there.
There is one more interesting matter of interference between nuclear and non-nuclear submarines: dynamics and manoeuvring control. It was the emergence of nuclear submarines with their high speeds that demanded our attention on the hull lines and manoeuvrability. The works were done using prototype diesel-electric submarines, because it was easier and cheaper. Various complexes and systems, even missiles for Typhoon-class SSBN, were tested on numerous Whiskey-class conventional submarines.
In 2016, it was 50 years since the first Russian nuclear strategic missile submarine cruiser was commissioned by the Russian Navy, and in 2011 it was half a century since the first attack nuclear submarine armed with cruise missiles was inducted. These submarines were designed by Rubin and throughout this period we have been continuing improvements of all systems of submarines of different types.
A Rubin-designed Delta IV class ballistic missile submarine (photo: Oleg Kuleshov)
VAYU : Is it possible to unify nuclear and non-nuclear submarines?
Igor Vilnit: This unification is a continuous process. As nuclear submarines came about later than conventional ones, it is logical that nuclear subs borrowed everything (except the power plant) from diesel-electric submarines. After that, and quite the contrary, nuclear subs became ‘pioneers’ in new technologies. The fact is that in the very beginning any new system is characterised by big dimensions and weight and it consumes considerable amount of power. For a nuclear submarine it is a lesser problem than for a conventional one with its limited power balance. After that when any equipment undergoes improvements and becomes better and more compact, less power-hungry and requires less maintenance by the personnel, it is transferred to a conventional submarine. For the operator of non-nuclear submarines it is beneficial: technologies have been already proven and thus the customer knows what he is paying for. Besides, the number of non-nuclear submarines being constructed exceeds the number of constructed nuclear ones, and this provides resources for improving systems; moreover, that competition at the export market literally forces one improve own proposals. Further, these improvements are integrated in nuclear submarines. There are dozens of examples: integrated combat systems, missile firing from torpedo tubes, an echoing coating, towed antennas, optronic masts and other systems right up to air conditioning systems.
Only three countries in the world including Russia, which are constructing diesel-electric submarines, have the industrial experience in creating ships with vertical launchers. It’s not a simple issue, there are numerous aspects. The pressure hull with missile tubes responds to water pressure in different manner, calculation of stresses for such a hull have considerable differences. Missile tube hatches and their drives shall work reliably under largely varying conditions that emerge throughout the service life of the submarine. There is also a system of data inputs to missile, system of missile ejection from a container, system of post-firing stabilisation of the submarine and a great number of other systems in absence of which missile carrying submarines cannot be created. Apart of that, it is required to create infrastructure on the shore to provide storage, tests, loading and unloading of missiles. Rubin with its regular construction of nuclear submarines, possesses and retains all necessary skills and these can be offered to the customer.
VAYU : Are there any technologies which nuclear submarines borrow from conventional ones? Or does the process move in one direction only?
Igor Vilnit: Yes, there are. Power consumption restrictions onboard a dieselelectric submarine demand to resolve problems of energy efficiency faster. Until recently electric propulsion motors have been in demand for diesel-electric submarines only, so that equipment was developed just for their use. Storage batteries, essentially lithium-ion batteries, were developed for diesel-electric submarines because they are much more required there.
There is one more interesting matter of interference between nuclear and non-nuclear submarines: dynamics and manoeuvring control. It was the emergence of nuclear submarines with their high speeds that demanded our attention on the hull lines and manoeuvrability. The works were done using prototype diesel-electric submarines, because it was easier and cheaper. Various complexes and systems, even missiles for Typhoon-class SSBN, were tested on numerous Whiskey-class conventional submarines.
The Indian Navy’s INS Sindhuraj arriving at Severodvinsk for a major refit (photo: Oleg Kuleshov)
VAYU : India’s DRDO is developing an indigenous AIP system. What do you think about the possibility of AIP integration into your design or the possibility of joint work on AIP?
Igor Vilnit: I am absolutely sure that the Indian Navy is anxious to integrate indigenously-constructed AIP on its own ships. We are ready to help with integration of the Indian AIP or facilitate its creation.
VAYU : However, if we continue to draw a parallel between nuclear and non-nuclear shipbuilding, is not a nuclear reactor the best type of AIP?
Igor Vilnit: Nuclear power plant is quite complex, but it indeed gives the submarine the widest range of capabilities. As far as we know, India is quickly advancing in the creation of a national nuclear fleet and this is the indication of the serious technological level of the country. There are three types of submarines in a navy, with strategic submarines, attack submarines ensuring domination in blue waters and tactical purpose submarines solving a wide range of tasks at sea makes the Navy well-balanced and allows rational use of such ships for the best solution of tasks. A similar approach is followed by the Russian Navy.
Russia’s Ministry of Defence selected AIP based on the diesel fuel reforming technology for developing and fitting on non-nuclear submarines. Only in the case of diesel fuel reforming the submarine is an opportunity to store one type of fuel only and to use it for both diesel-generators, if any, and the AIP system. Hence, the submarine’s operational cost reduces. Even for diesel submarines the expenses for fuel during 30 years of service life is a major part of operating expenditure.
Diesel fuel reforming ensures required submerged endurance. This is a possibility for non-nuclear submarines to operate in open theatres at considerable distance from the bases, not being able to use unstealthy modes, including during transit, avoiding threats from numerous and a skilful enemy. Russian submarines’ operational conditions are distinctly different from West European ones, which operate in enclosed theatres at short distances from patrol areas to own bases and in presence of allied forces. However, as far as we known, both France and Germany have started work in the field of reforming, so time has proven the correctness of the Russian Navy’s choice. Lithium-ion batteries facilitate the increase of patrol time in submerged conditions as well. Lithium-ion batteries developed by us have been adopted for manufacture and are used on the Russian Navy’s submarines.
A Project 636 (improved Kilo) submarine under
construction in Saint Petersburg (photo: Admiralty Shipyards)