Posted on 04/12/2013 11:43:10 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
The PWR reactor design for the Brazilian Navy’s future nuclear-powered submarine (SN-Br) has been completed.
A model of the design, known as the 2131-R, and an actual-size combustion element were on display at the navy’s stand at the LAAD exhibition in Rio de Janeiro.
A spokesperson from the Brazilian Navy told Shephard that the reactor design had been completed with assistance from France but that the reactor itself would be built in Brazil at a later date.
The navy had two separate designs of the SN-Br on display at the stand. A model from the navy’s technology centre in Sao Paulo showed a submarine divided into seven blocks with the PWR reactor positioned amidships eight torpedoes situated at the front of the boat.
Navy literature showed a second design with just two torpedo tubes but including six vertical launch missile tubes in the front section of the boat. This version is to displace 4,000t and have a length of 100m and diameter of 9.8m.
The nuclear-powered submarine is being built at part of the navy’s PROSUB programme under a contract signed between Brazil and France in 2008 for $4.25 billion. As well as the SN-Br, the programme will also see acquisition of four conventionally powered diesel-electric submarines (known as S-Br) based on an enlarged 75m-long 2,000t design for the Scorpene submarine built by DCNS.
What is that company in Texas charging for one?
You buy it, bury it in the ground for 20 years. It is fully self-contained and cannot “melt-down”
At the end of 20 years you dig it up and replace it.
It can power a small town
“At the end of 20 years you dig it up and replace it.”
The libtards will only want to dig the propeller up and turn it into a windmill.
Since none of those advanced, small and buried designs has as of yet submitted the design for approval by the NRC, they are not selling them yet, at least not in the states. A few of them have started pre-application discussions, even going back a couple years. But none of them have gone to the approval of design phase yet.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advanced Reactors
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced.html
Why would Brazil need an nuclear submarine? What is the mission?
To obtain a decisive combat edge over the navy of Paraguay.
Furthermore, Brazil can easily afford these weapons. It already has any economy larger than that of Britain (which has advanced SSNs), and is expected to overtake the economy of France soon (which also has advanced SSNs). Most importantly though, it is a sovereign country that believes the most prudent course of action in terms of national defence is to ascertain it for themselves rather than rely on Uncle Sam. Since Brazil can easily afford it, good for them.
Translation: To sell.
They don’t need to extend power like that.
I’d say that they need that capability just as much as France and the UK do. As the leading economic and military power in a continent, and an economy equal to that of France and greater than that of the UK, they have every right to get what they can afford within reason (ie no wmds). Especially since they can more than afford it.
South Korea, Italy, Japan and Mexico meet your criteria and they don’t have nuclear submarines.
I don’t think any of the countries meet the criteria. You should have said Australia – a country that I consider most similar, and I will tackle at the end of my post.
Take South Korea. Seoul definitely has a belligerent neighbor in North Korea, with both nations being at loggerheads for decades now. Furthermore, Pyongyang is actively aggressive, with recent events including shelling of South Korea territory and the sinking of a navy ship. South Korea has some good submarines (although the 214 has teething issues), and even a ‘carrier.’ The Dodko Class ‘amphibious landing ships’ are carriers in all but name, with F-35B/Harrier type jump-jet capability included.
However, there are some major differences.
For one there is size! Brazil, as the fifth largest country in the world, is large enough that, were it to be located where South Korea is, it would cover all of South Korea, all of North Korea, all of Japan, all of the Japan Sea, all of the East China Sea, part of the South China Sea, over a third of mainland China, half of Mongolia, a small part of Russian territory, and approach the northern part of the Philippines.
Maybe a better comparison is looking at the size of Brazil compared to that of the US. They are basically the same size (the US is 10% larger than Brazil once you add Alaska …without Alaska Brazil is larger). D-E submarines simply wouldn’t work.
Simply put, while D-E submarines would work perfectly for South Korea, where the main adversary is literally (literally!) within shelling distance of tube artillery. North Korean artillery regiments can target Seoul while in their mountain range positions. Brazil has an incredibly larger territory to defend, and D-E submarines simply would not work. Even with advanced AIP and all other technological niceties. In terms of persistence, while South Korea can do with D-E submarines and carriers – I mean, ‘amphibious landing ships’ – that can carry F-35Bs, that is not the case for Brazil. If South Korea needs F-35Bs, Brazil would need F-35Cs. If South Korea needs Harriers, Brazil would need F/A-18Es (which is the leading contender for their next naval jet, where it is competing against the Rafale for the current as well as next Brazilian carrier being built ….the third CATOBAR type carrier Brazil will have operated, and the only country apart from the US and France to currently operate CATOBAR carriers ).
Italy? Even less of a case than South Korea. Rome’s biggest threats are internal corruption in its government, the floundering (or is it flailing) economy, and the Camorra and Ndragheta mafias. While Italy has a capable navy, and even a Harrier carrier, it is simply not comparable to Brazil. For the matter, Brazil has federal states/provinces larger than Italy. Also, I doubt the Italian economy can afford a nuclear powered submarine.
Japan? Now we are talking. This is a country that, although small in size, has the third largest economy in the world after the US and China. It also has a large footprint to cover, considering its need to have the ability to stand up, if need be, against countries like China and Russia (Japan has conflicting ownership over territory with both those countries). Yet, Japan doesn’t have a nuclear powered submarine program. Why? It’s not because they cannot afford it, because they can. It is not because they do not have technology, because in reality Japan could very easily (and quickly) come up with functional nuclear weapons …fast! It is not that they do not have the know-how for building submarines, because one of the most advanced D-E submarines in the world is Japanese (the Soryu Class, which may be the best D-E submarine, although it currently cannot be exported). It is not because they cannot built a naval nuclear power-plant, since they built one in the early 1970s …the one that was put in a nuclear powered merchant ship called the Mitsu ….a merchant ship). Why not? Simply because of interpretation of the Article 9 of their constitution and the non-nuclear principles. While they directly pertain to nuclear weapons, the interpretation that the use of nuclear technology should only be for peaceful purposes (e.g. powering the electricity grid, weird experiments like a nuclear powered merchant vessel) do not apply to non-peaceful ones (e.g. a nuclear bomb, or nuclear powered military vessels).
Thus, Japan does not apply.
Which leaves Mexico.
Well, Mexico is large …although Brazil would still contain four Mexicos within it. Thus, even though Brazil is over four times as large, Mexico is still large. However, Mexico, like Canada, basically/implicitly outsourced its real military capability to the US decades ago. The Mexican armed forces are actually quite good (and the Canadian armed forces are EXTREMELY good), but they are not as good as they would be if the world’s only superpower was not their neighbor! Look at the Mexican navy. Their real capability is basically at coast guard level, with the main thing being to nab drug smugglers. What about the Canadians? Huge capability to have a world class military (and certain sections of their military, eg their special forces, are easily world class) …but no need to do it. As long as the US is a superpower, all their external threat facets are very well taken care of. All they need (in the case of Mexico) is capability to meet drug-related problems and (in the case of Canada) being able to form expeditionary units to send to places like Afghanistan.
Which is similar to how small countries like Uruguay depend on Brazil for much of their real external defense.
Anyways, none of those countries, with the exception of Japan, are in anyways comparable to Brazil …and in Japan’s case their constitution and its interpretation disqualifies them. A better country to use would have been Australia. Far better than any of the four you mentioned. Australia is basically a country that is also a continent, huge coastline, huge expanse of ocean, and China being in the general neighborhood (after a looooong drive). While its economy is smaller than Brazil’s, it is still a rich country.
Yet Australia doesn’t have nuclear powered submarines. It uses the D-E powered Collins, which had great promise but had a lot of teething problems.
Interesting thing is that a section of the Australian government, and part of its ministry of defence, have been pushing for nuclear powered submarines! Including buying and/or leasing LA Class and/or Virginia class attack boats from the US. The Labor government subsequently ruled out buying nuclear boats, but to much opposition and claims by the former defense secretary that the US had been willing to sell them the boats.
Australia would need nuclear powered submarines for much the same reason that Brazil would need them. And for the same reasons countries like Italy and South Korea do not.
What exactly is Brazil defending against again? I thought the Monroe Doctrine pretty much protected them all? Brazil remains a largely third world country in a third world area (Latin America).
As for the Monroe Doctrine ...not every country considers it prudent to be under the protective aegis of another. Some actually go as far as wanting their own independent capability, as shocking as that might be to some. Furthermore, considering how some always complain that South Korea and Japan depend 'too much' on Uncle Sam it is always funny to see another group claiming country X is being too independent.
Finally, looking at current US leadership one will notice that more and more countries (with means) will develop their own US independent defense capabilities. For example, do you really think if China attacked Taiwan the US (under the administration of Obama, Bush W, and/or Clinton) would do anything apart from sending a strongly worded letter? Goodness, even selling them F-16s was a problem (even though virtually GIVING them to Egypt and Pakistan was not).
The Brazilians would be daft to rely on the Monroe Doctrine. There was a time it meant something (eg when Reagan was in office and the American economy was strong). Now? Brazil might as well believe in the tooh fairy.
Who are they defending themselves against? They are going to be a Third World nation with a single nuclear submarine. Why?
It also helps shut the mouths of certain FReepers who always complain country XYZ is sucking too hard on Uncle Sam's tit (I prefer the spelling 'teat' though). Now, there will be a small segment that is very concerned that a 'third world nation is getting a single nuclear submarine.' After all, there is so much development that could have been done with that money. However, in my over ten years on FR I have only come across ONE such person who gets all concerned about what other countries are spending their money on...you. I can, however, count six FReepers who actively rant that Taiwan/Japan/South Korea/Canada/etc, even the UK amazingly, are using too much US tax payer funds in their continued protection.
Thus it is quite refreshing debating someone who feels a sovereign country shouldn't spend their little little money on a dastardly nuclear submarine and instead rely on Uncle Sam. After all, the Monroe Doctrine is still in effect (even though it is about external powers coming to the Americas, and says nothing about, say, a Venezuela or Argentina deciding to much things up ....but then again, who cares about facts). It's a refreshing change from the usual 'bring back the troops' vitriol.
It probably has a bit to do with my background, which is finance/economics. So while I can understand wealthy countries spending money on a robust defense, a poor country with no enemies doing so puzzles me. Brazil is not doing well http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/ it is odd, but many things are odd.
I also have a background in finance (private equity), and I constantly see institutions (and people) make ‘investments’ that are questionable. To the extent that in my pre-PE days when I was doing long only equity investments, a strong sell indicator was a company ‘investing’ in a new super-swanky corporate headquarters. That sell signal never let me down once. Going to countries, the same applies. Does Brazil really need a super sub? Probably not. Does the US need the LCS (the program will cost billions more than the Brazillian submarine AND carrier programs, and the program is criticized as ineffective)? Probably not. However, both the US and Brazil are funding the stuff themselves (lets ignore borrowing from China for one of those countries), and if in their wisdom/folly they think a nuclear submarine or a $500m corvette class ship with rust and self defense issues (the LCS) is worth it they can go ahead. I, and many others, think the LCS is stupid. But the US military thinks otherwise, and the tax payer apparently has no problems with it. Thus, no need for me to get irate over the audacity of the US to invest in a paper skinned expensive ship. Same for Brazil.
We’re in agreement then. We already had some terrific LCS type vessels; they were called the New Jersey, the Wisconsin, etc. As a former artillery officer, I’ve followed with interest the abortion that is the LCS program. As regards corporate headquarters, we’re in agreement as well. I think Nucor’s approach to corporate facilities (I think they’re located over a Piggly Wiggly or some such) is the optimal solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.