Debunking the INS Arihant "Damage" Claim. Did the Indian Navy really damaged a billion dollar submarine due to unprofessionalism?

This whole ruckus started after The Hindu (a major Indian news publication) reported "INS Arihant was left crippled after an 'accident' 10 months ago"

The claims in this report are so absurd and filled with technical inconsistencies that anyone with even a basic understanding of submarine design and operational procedures would laugh at them, But then again, who needs that when you can just bang your head at the keyboard and call it a news report.

First the report stated that "Arihant ’s propulsion compartment was damaged after water rushed in as a hatch on the rear side was left open by mistake while it was at harbour."

The Arihant has no hatches in the propulsion section as it is based on a Russian double hull design with a sealed nuclear reactor section (inspired by the Akula class submarines). The reactor is completely isolated and inaccesible in any way to prevent any potential nuclear contamination
Although the Arihant's reactor is not designed to operate for the submarine's lifetime, refueling will require cutting open the hull and welding it back together.

From

Arihant Class Submarine

INS Arihant is India’s first nuclear-powered submarine. The ship submersible ballistic, nuclear (SSBN) submarine was launched at the Indian Navy’s…

 www.naval-technology.com

Arihant’s design is based on the Russian Akula-1 class submarine. It weighs 6,000t. At a length of 110m and breadth of 11m, Arihant is the longest in the Indian Navy’s fleet of submarines and can accommodate a crew of 95. It can reach speeds of 12kt-15kt on the surface and up to 24kt when submerged.

From

SSN Akula Class (Bars Type 971) Nuclear Submarine

The Russian Navy has 14 Bars Class project 971 submarines known in the West as the Akula Class nuclear-powered submarines…

 www.naval-technology.com

Akula submarine design - The submarine has a double-hulled configuration with a distinctive high aft fin. The hull has seven compartments and the stand-off distance between the outer and inner hulls is considerable, reducing possible inner hull damage.

Additionally, there are no external hatches in the compartment that houses the steam turbine, gearbox, generator, and propeller shaft either. Under normal circumstances, it is not possible for sea water to enter the submarine, and certainly not via a ‘non-existent hatch’.
Considering the sophistication and so many advanced sensors present on a modern submarine, it cannot be possible for a submarine to not be equipped with an open hatch warning system.

The report further stated "The Ministry of Defence did not respond to questions regarding the matter in the parliament"

Ministry of defence has always tried to keep things even remotely related to India's Strategic forces command (SFC) under the wraps due to national security concerns. For example, the ministry refused to divulge any details about the number of nuclear warheads or what nuclear delivery platforms India has, citing security concerns. so ministry's refusal to give any detail regarding such an important asset of the SFC should not come as a surprise.

Next report stated "Since the accident, the submarine, built under the Advanced Technology Vessel project (ATV), has been undergoing repairs and clean up, the sources said."

While its true that INS Arihant underwent some repairs at SBC Visakhapatnam they were minor in nature and were part of routine maintenance and checkups. This fact becomes evident from satellite imagery which shows that the enclosed pier was visible for only a month which is long enough for routine checkups and minor repairs but not for major repairs needed for fixing the damages caused in the alleged accident.

At last the report alleged that "The absence of Arihant from operations came to the political leadership’s attention during the India-China military standoff at Doklam."

This particular allegation is highly unlikely as INS Arihant is operated by the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) which comprises of figures like the Prime Minister of India, Chief of Army Staff, National Security Adviser and R&AW Secretary.

It is improbable that such a significant and powerful body did not know about the status of such an important strategic asset for 10 months given that sea-based nuclear deterrence requires a mated warhead and a vehicle carrying such warheads will be under constant C4ISR from the SFC and a failure to do so would mean an across-the-board failure of intelligence and the checks and balances in place which is highly unlikely.

Not to mention that the civilian leadership asking for India's nuclear assets to be deployed during the Doklam crisis itself is highly unlikely as the Doklam crisis was not high up enough on the escalation ladder to warrant such an extreme measure as both countries have a no first use policy regarding their nuclear weapons.
In addition, India at the time only operated K-15 SLBMs with a maximum range of 1500km, which was not enough for a credible sea-based deterrence against China.



Therefore, it is evident that the INS Arihant did not suffer any stupid accident like leaving a hatch open and this report is just a worthless piece of propaganda intended against India and its armed forces.