Brazil's Nuclear Submarine

Well, that’s not official yet, just what leaked about the project and is going on in the military forums around here. Another point that deserves notice is that according to some experts and sources within the Navy, the current reactor prototype wouldn’t fit into the Barracuda hull, so they will either have to design a bigger one or to downscale the reactor, which have a good chance of happening also. What is certain is that they are going for a new design, not just trying to fit a reactor on a Scorpene in any way…

The future Nuclear Sub will not be a “Scorpene type”. It’s meant to displace around 6000 tons which is a bit larger than French Rubys/Amethiste design. …

That’s bigger than the new French Barracuda. It’s much bigger than the old Rubis/Amethyste, which AFAIK is the smallest SSN design ever built.

I’m sure a Brazilian poster could provide more info on this,
but AFAIK the Brazilian Navy has been trying to develop a nuclear sub for some time, so it’s hardly a stretch or a new project out of the blue. I have NEVER seen any talk of France transferring naval reactor technology: Brazil has already been developing it for this exact purpose. But indeed, the size of the ship they’re talking about just re-inforces what a stupid idea it is.

Personally, it seems absurd when long endurance AIP is available (DCNS’ next-gen MESMA looks great and current gen supposedly offers 21+ days submerged), and could even be extended by developing a “silent-refuelable at sea” operational protocol.
But the admirals want their nuclear sub :confused:

The future Nuclear Sub will not be a “Scorpene type”. It’s meant to displace around 6000 tons which is a bit larger than French Rubys/Amethiste design. It will be a new design specifically to house the Brazilian made reactor whose prototype is said to be already working at Navy’s center ARAMAR. The project for a Nuc Sub exist from 1978 and was halted several times by lack of funds. The Navy continued to invest in it on their own albeit slowly. Now there is a government commitment to assure the funds needed to continue the research for the next years. The plan to purchase a hull from the French is a way to skip stages and regain part of the time lost. BTW the contract emcompasses not only the technology of construction but also that of DESIGN of submarines which is an ambitionous(?) step in the direction of allowing Brazil to design and build its own submarines, nuclear and conventional in the future.
As for AIP, the new END (National Defense Strategy) points to ways of developing the National industry of defense but also spilling the benefits to the civilian society in ways of technology and scientific improvement. I can think of many uses for nuclear tech, from energy production to medicine aplication, but no use for AIP other than moving a Sub longer below the water.
I hope everything I wrote made sense, I tried the best with the limited time I have and my english skills. 🙂

…A new carrier is a great idea and with Brazil and India already forming great bonds, I can’t see why Brazil couldn’t tack on a carrier or two to the current Indian order of three, these certainly would cost considerably less than Brazil trying to build one herself.

India has only ordered one so far. The design for number two doesn’t seem to have been decided yet (there is great debate on Indian fora over its likely size, & whether it might have catapults), & given the remarkably long gestation of number one, don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

Nor is Indian shipbuilding particularly cheap. Labour costs are low, but so is labour productivity, & building rate, which puts up costs.

I’m sure a Brazilian poster could provide more info on this,
but AFAIK the Brazilian Navy has been trying to develop a nuclear sub for some time, so it’s hardly a stretch or a new project out of the blue. I have NEVER seen any talk of France transferring naval reactor technology: Brazil has already been developing it for this exact purpose. But indeed, the size of the ship they’re talking about just re-inforces what a stupid idea it is.

Personally, it seems absurd when long endurance AIP is available (DCNS’ next-gen MESMA looks great and current gen supposedly offers 21+ days submerged), and could even be extended by developing a “silent-refuelable at sea” operational protocol.
But the admirals want their nuclear sub :confused:

Re: Carriers,
Samsung is already cooperating with Atlantico on commercial ships – Combining this know-how with DCNS consulation and following the same semi-commercial block construction model of Mistral and (now cancelled?) PA2 seems like the path that’s being laid. Cats just open up way more options than ramps like India’s Vikrant has. With the aeronautic cooperation being discussed (Embraer/Dassault/etc) a future Fr/Br cat-launched AEW plane (manned or otherwise) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I’d be interested in who might be the next party to develop EMALS: it’s certainly do-able, and whoever does should be able to find some further customers in next 15-20-odd years. Resurrecting / re-inventing steam technology seems a dead end – there looks to be plenty more future uses (DE weapons for one) for a high electric-generation provisioning which EMALS would just be one user of.

Given the difficulty and time it took India (despite their extensive reactor design and building experience) to build and integrate a small reactor into the ATV nuclear sub, I wonder how Brazil will fare. I doubt that the French will give any reactor technology, so is the Brazilian Nuclear industry capable of creating a small reactor needed for a nuclear sub. The other question I have is regarding the small size of the proposed brazilian nuclear sub. They are proposing fitting a reactor into a scorpene based sub which is quite small by nuclear sub standards.

As for economic rankings the UN and most Govts use Purchasing Power Parity when looking at GDP. India with a PPP GDP of 3.3 Trillion ranks No. 4 in the world behind US, China and Japan. Brazil’s PPP GDP is around 2 Trillion and ranked no 9 in the world.

Interesting presentation
(In Portuguese)

the underwater guardians of the Brazilian Coast

http://www.estadao.com.br/especiais/os-guardioes-submersos-da-costa-brasileira,70378.htm

VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gALvBy0OX-k

I mentioned it in another post, but the reasons Brazil is looking at this type of vessel is simple: they have operational differences of opinion with the US.

Brazil isn’t to comfortable with having nukes patrolling just off her shores, while the US won’t say that they do, it’s well known in the silent service that one of their patrol areas is just outside the Brazilian national limits. Brazil wishes to have an SSN as a deterant to outside influence such as marauding USN SSN’s.

A new carrier is a great idea and with Brazil and India already forming great bonds, I can’t see why Brazil couldn’t tack on a carrier or two to the current Indian order of three, these certainly would cost considerably less than Brazil trying to build one herself.

Actually, this has brought up some interesting questions Grim.

What exactly should the criteria be to join the security council? I think we all know that the original “entrance fee” was nuclear weapons. We all know that Germany could develop nukes at the drop of a hat. The willingness to commit troops to overseas areas is something that relatively isolationist China has no real history of doing. Is India ready for it when they still have the caste system and grinding poverty? The counter argument being that China hasn’t even got democracy.

didn’t China have a poverty ridden society when it was given a permanent seat on the UN security council ? has poverty disappeared from rural China ?

what was the criteria then ? just nuclear weapons ? if we use just that or just how many troops it contributes then even Pakistan would qualify on that basis.

The facts are that currently India has the second largest populace in the world. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have a very large army, much like the Chinese. If the UN pays for feeding and deploying a relatively large percentage of those troops, well then you must applaud that for it’s sensibility from the Indian side.:p

India needn’t contribute the highest number of troops. the UN doesn’t force it to, India does it out of its own volition. its not like if the UN didn’t pay for these troops that India couldn’t afford to keep them in service, so the UN is NOT doing India a favour by paying them for deployment. and your suggestion that just because India has a large population implies that it needs a large army is flawed to say the least. its the region in which India lies- take a look at the size of China’s army or Pakistan’s army. PLAAF is much larger, so why can’t they contribute more troops to the UN instead of India ?

below is from a book by Lt. Col Sathish Nambiar “For the Honour of India: A History of Indian Peacekeeping”

The book derives its title from the motto chosen for independent India’s first UN peacekeeping operation, the Custodian Force in Korea, 1953-54. Ever since gaining Independence in 1947, India’s unreserved participation in UN and regional peacekeeping operations has been both spontaneous and enthusiastic.

To date, about 100,000 Indian personnel have served in 43 such operations including all operations undertaken in Africa. The fact that, as of 31 March 2009, 130 Indian peacekeepers have given their lives in UN peacekeeping operations alone, underlines more than anything else the Indian commitment to the primary objective set out in the UN Charter, viz., to ‘maintain international peace and security’. Indian peacekeeping participation has evolved from its idealistic origins during the Nehruvian era to the present where it is inextricably linked to the furtherance of India’s national security interests.

There’s really some areas where Brazil and India could cooperate. SSNs, carrier, corvettes, fighter/interceptor etc.

Brazilian president Lula said that India refused to share nuclear submarine related technology..that might not allow for cooperation on the SSN front, but they will both share the similar Scorpene subs, so maybe if there are any additional developments on either side, weapons and technology wise, it could be a shared program.

…

I personally haven’t much time for the UN. They should stop trying to feed the unsustainable amounts of proginey from certain quarters and spend that money on teaching people that the reason why they are starving is that if you cannot feed your 2nd or 3rd child, it is criminal behaviour to have 6 or 7 more. Sustainability…..

The UN, & most international aid organisations, are very keen on doing all the things which reduce birthrates, i.e. female education, provision of contraceptives, & sexual education. Unfortunately, some religious organisations & national goverments are less keen. For example, the USA has recently (not always – it used to be an enthusiastic supporter) had a decidedly ambivalent attitude towards contraception, sex education, etc.. Under the last president, it cut funds considerably. It’s also refused to fund programmes which include any mention of abortion. And it’s not the only one, by any means.

But enough off-topic stuff. Back to Brazil.

A single SSN is a statement of intent, I suppose, a symbol. Brazil has the good fortune of not physically needing very much from the rest of the world, except fuel, & that need looks as if it might diminish, with recent oil discoveries, but it is tied in to the world economy, & could argue that it has as much stake in what occurs in, say, Iran, as the USA does. This is also true of smaller countries such as Portugal, but they lack the resources to do much.

Because the French have them?

Well, if the french have then …:diablo:

Actually, this has brought up some interesting questions Grim.

What exactly should the criteria be to join the security council? I think we all know that the original “entrance fee” was nuclear weapons. We all know that Germany could develop nukes at the drop of a hat. The willingness to commit troops to overseas areas is something that relatively isolationist China has no real history of doing. Is India ready for it when they still have the caste system and grinding poverty? The counter argument being that China hasn’t even got democracy.

Either way, the UN is a deepy flawed entity. The entire “Security Council” with it’s veto rights smacks of Orwells Animal Farm, although seeing as how some of the most primitive, corrupt, and repressive regimes pool their votes in racially based block votes (ie: OAU) shows that this is probably a needed evil. I personally haven’t much time for the UN. They should stop trying to feed the unsustainable amounts of proginey from certain quarters and spend that money on teaching people that the reason why they are starving is that if you cannot feed your 2nd or 3rd child, it is criminal behaviour to have 6 or 7 more. Sustainability.

Either way, back on topic: Brazil has had an SSN programme for many years now, and so this is interesting in that it might signal a more assertive stance from Brazil. The word is the Rafale is to be selected shortly, which will greatly boost the Air Force.

Grim, so you’re implying population counts, but not current and potential economic conditions? Of course payments are as important to the UN as troops. Without payments, the troops couldn’t be deployed.

The facts are that currently India has the second largest populace in the world. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have a very large army, much like the Chinese. If the UN pays for feeding and deploying a relatively large percentage of those troops, well then you must applaud that for it’s sensibility from the Indian side.:p

But I’m always wary of this numbers game. With that criteria, Nigeria should soon have a permanant seat.:rolleyes:

Either way, the UN setup is, and always has been, an extremely flawed organisation.

I didn’t say population was more important did I?

Yes they do have a very large army because of the large population, that’s fine, but the size of the force and willingness to use them should not count against them in any way, it is a positive thing.

And payments to the UN should be ignored when choosing a position on the security council, you shouldn’t be able to buy a seat, the work done there is too important. And payments to the UN don’t just go on paying someone else to do peacekeeping, for all we know Brazil could be paying for everything except that.

And yes the UN is entirely flawed and rarely, if ever, works well. Adding more security council members would only make it worse. I’m only comfortable saying India could have a seat because they actually deserve it. But it would make the UN a little less effective, especially when dealing with the potential disaster zone that is India, Pakistan and China.

So far though i’ve heard no compelling argument for Brazil to get a seat, their military is centred around self defence and their power is solely regional.

Grim, so you’re implying population counts, but not current and potential economic conditions? Of course payments are as important to the UN as troops. Without payments, the troops couldn’t be deployed.

The facts are that currently India has the second largest populace in the world. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have a very large army, much like the Chinese. If the UN pays for feeding and deploying a relatively large percentage of those troops, well then you must applaud that for it’s sensibility from the Indian side.:p

But I’m always wary of this numbers game. With that criteria, Nigeria should soon have a permanant seat.:rolleyes:

Either way, the UN setup is, and always has been, an extremely flawed organisation.

Brazil is the 5th largest nation in the world in land area. It is also the world’s tenth largest economy*, 2 slots higher than India.

India is not in the list of the top 15 contributors to the UN budget, despite its overall economic strength… making India an “over-payer” in troops, but an “under-payer” in monetary terms.

*currency-neutral GDP 2008… the World Monetary Fund & the CIA World Factbook both rank Brazil #10 and India #12, while the World Bank ranks Brazil #8 and India #12.

The first paragraph of yours is irrelevant for the security council. Land area means nothing in terms of military power.

India contributes a massive number of troops to UN missions which is much more relevant than Brazil paying money to the UN in general. You can’t buy a place on the council. India shows a willingness to to act by deploying large numbers of troops.

Again economic power means nothing if you won’t spend on the military or use the power. That is why both Japan and Germany are borderline cases and not yet members.

Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and land area. Brazil maintains the world’s 18th largest armed force.

It has contributed troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, the former Belgian Congo, Cyprus, Mozambique, Angola, and more recently East Timor and Haiti. Brazil is one of the main contributors to the UN regular budget, ranking 12th.

Brazil has been elected nine times to the Security Council, most recently in 2004-2005.

India, a nuclear power, has the world’s second largest population and is the world’s largest liberal democracy. It is also the world’s twelfth largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity.

Currently, India maintains the world’s third largest armed force. India is the largest contributor of troops to United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

India has been elected to the council six times in total, although the last of those was more than a decade ago, in 1991-92.

Brazil is the 5th largest nation in the world in land area. It is also the world’s tenth largest economy*, 2 slots higher than India.

India is not in the list of the top 15 contributors to the UN budget, despite its overall economic strength… making India an “over-payer” in troops, but an “under-payer” in monetary terms.

*currency-neutral GDP 2008… the World Monetary Fund & the CIA World Factbook both rank Brazil #10 and India #12, while the World Bank ranks Brazil #8 and India #12.

Brazil does not have the potential to be more than a regional power. In my view all they do with SSN plans is waste national resources and cause discomfort in the theatre regarding their ambitions.

To some extent I agree with you. The current SSN plans are only for regional ops, I think they said it was to defend their EEZ. Not even very ambitious.

Brazil has vast potential. It’s never been realised, but that doesn’t mean it never will be.

I agree, but I don’t think they’re going to realise it and move into the role as global power anytime soon.

Brazil has vast potential. It’s never been realised, but that doesn’t mean it never will be.