Brazil building own nuclear submarine

contedicavour

New Member
I wish the Brazilian navy specified what missions they wish to do with the SSN. Long range patrol, ASW, ASUW, land attack with cruise missiles (SCALP ? I don't see the US providing TLAMs)...
They should also start providing some price tags so that their Parliament could evaluate the programme vs alternative spending...

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I wish the Brazilian navy specified what missions they wish to do with the SSN. Long range patrol, ASW, ASUW, land attack with cruise missiles (SCALP ? I don't see the US providing TLAMs)...
They should also start providing some price tags so that their Parliament could evaluate the programme vs alternative spending...

cheers
Missions? Price tag? For a vanity project? Who cares about the price, as long as it's the biggest on the block?

I doubt the navy brass have ever bothered their puffed-up egos about such trivia, any more than they have done when buying aircraft carriers. :(
 

contedicavour

New Member
Missions? Price tag? For a vanity project? Who cares about the price, as long as it's the biggest on the block?

I doubt the navy brass have ever bothered their puffed-up egos about such trivia, any more than they have done when buying aircraft carriers. :(
You are very probably right. But at least used aircraft carriers were bought for a pittance. Building brand new SSNs will be of another order of magnitude budget-wise. And the times when the military had a lot of weight in government decisions is long gone in Brazil...

cheers
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
If India plans on getting SSNs, why not Brazil? And why burn oil when you can sell it, get revenue, and invest it in nuclear technology, civilian & military?
Plans regarding nuclear weapons may change, and future Brazilian SSNs may or may not carry them. Also, there are currently 2 nuclear weapon nations- Russia and China- that operate both SSNs & SSKs, and in the past, the UK & France. BTW, Russia is experimenting with a hybrid concept. IMO, India & Brazil may follow their examples!
 
And as I've said, each has different circumstances. E.g. Germany & Italy have no perceived need for long-range, long-endurance submarines, & Japan has an absolute political barrier to nuclear-powered ships.
All of these countries that you mentioned have top of the line SSKs which meets their requirement thus there is no need for a SSN.


You keep repeating the same line, & ignoring all counter-arguments.
I repeat it because you haven't counter it IMO. The fact of the matter is no non nuclear weapon state has produced a SSN and used it to deploy conventional weapons only.


What other non-nuclear states with greater financial resources & technology base than Brazil are there? The only candidates are Canada (considered & decided against for political & financial reasons), Spain, S. Korea & Australia (as Canada) -
This is my point, at some point they might have thought about it but the overall benefit wasn't/isn't compelling enought to build it which is why the operate SSKs.

and none of these actually has a bigger real GDP.
The definition of real GDP going a bit off track.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
All of these countries that you mentioned have top of the line SSKs which meets their requirement thus there is no need for a SSN.
That is rubbish. Italy & Germany have short-range SSKs because they have short-range requirements. SSNs would be inappropriate, indeed inferior to SSKs, in the Bundesmarines operating environment. Japan - and you must be incredibly obtuse not to understand this - will not operate anything nuclear-powered for both domestic & foreign political reasons. Japan has top-line SSKs because it can't get SSNs, not the other way round. Etc.

I repeat it because you haven't counter it IMO. The fact of the matter is no non nuclear weapon state has produced a SSN and used it to deploy conventional weapons only.
I have countered it, but you are clearly incapable of understanding. And as for your "fact" - what nuclear weapons do the Rubis-class (for example) SSNs carry? And the UKs SSNs carry torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and Tactical (non-nuclear) Tomahawk.

This is my point, at some point they might have thought about it but the overall benefit wasn't/isn't compelling enought to build it which is why the operate SSKs.
What is important, as you are clearly unable or unwilling to grasp, is why each country decided against it. Each has or had specific, national, reasons, which differ from country to country, because each country has a different internal political, external political, geographic, economic & military situation. You imagine (& it is imagine) that there is a general rule, but that is untrue. We have to consider specifics here, and your refusal to do so, & retreat into vague generalities, I take as proof that you are unable to produce any sound arguments to support your view.

The definition of real GDP going a bit off track.
No, it is precisely on track. You raised the matter of countries with the economic strength to buy SSNs. Once you've raised it, it's fair game for anyone arguing with you.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
GDP comparison: India's $2.965 trillion (2007 est.) , Brazil $1.838 trillion (2007 est.)

India has 2X lead, but Brazil has smaller military, and only 1 CV. BTW, Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines, which are not SSNs!
Although it has been long suspected that Israel bought three German diesel-electric submarines with the specific aim of arming them with nuclear cruise missiles, the admission that the two countries had collaborated in arming the fleet with a nuclear-capable weapons system is significant at a time of growing crisis between Israel and its neighbours.
I agree that nukes can be deployed on any class of subs (except perhaps on a mini-sub), and the fact that Israel is satisfied with not having SSNs is a case in point: all her adversaries all close-by, and the economic burden would not justify the costs. OTH, Brazil has more geopolitical & economic factors that would, IMO, warrant getting SSNs/SSGNs, and, down the road, SSBNs.
I would compare this with having a few big guard dogs: if your life & property is worth guarding, then their upkeep is worth it!
 
That is rubbish. Italy & Germany have short-range SSKs because they have short-range requirements. SSNs would be inappropriate, indeed inferior to SSKs, in the Bundesmarines operating environment. Japan - and you must be incredibly obtuse not to understand this - will not operate anything nuclear-powered for both domestic & foreign political reasons. Japan has top-line SSKs because it can't get SSNs, not the other way round. Etc.
"Short-range" you say?
The U212 submarine is capable of long-distance submerged passage to the area of operation...
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

I have countered it, but you are clearly incapable of understanding. And as for your "fact" - what nuclear weapons do the Rubis-class (for example) SSNs carry? And the UKs SSNs carry torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and Tactical (non-nuclear) Tomahawk.
Last time i check UK and France are nuclear weapon states. Apparently you still haven't grasped the gist of my argument.


What is important, as you are clearly unable or unwilling to grasp, is why each country decided against it. Each has or had specific, national, reasons, which differ from country to country, because each country has a different internal political, external political, geographic, economic & military situation. You imagine (& it is imagine) that there is a general rule, but that is untrue. We have to consider specifics here, and your refusal to do so, & retreat into vague generalities, I take as proof that you are unable to produce any sound arguments to support your view.
The fact remains that No non nuclear weapon state has ever produced a nuclear power submarine. You can come up with reasons as to why they haven't but if it was advantageous to do so it would have been done.

No, it is precisely on track. You raised the matter of countries with the economic strength to buy SSNs. Once you've raised it, it's fair game for anyone arguing with you.
By all mean feel free to dwell on it. ;)
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
Talk of Brazil building nuclear propelled submarines is talk.

Brazil has failed to produce her needed fleet of surface ships yet. Still dependent upon buying used frigates, tankers, and landing ships. If you can't produce and develop surface warships, how can they think they can produce underwater ships whose development and acquisition costs are more?

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, Latin America nations need to buy and build OPVs and patrol ships more than they need to buy or build warships. Its only because they are able to buy used warships, not only at the end of life but also at their mid-life, very cheaply, are they able to afford a surface navy. And when I say very cheaply, I'm saying a bit more than their scrap price.

You won't develop or keep nuclear technicians for long, unless you are able to keep them employed for the long term. Its the same with all technical personnel. You have to develop the military industrial complex first before you can start building warships.
 

kilo

New Member
This argument is getting really repetitive. I don't think anyone is going to convince radiosilence. He will just repeat the same thing so I'm not even going to try.

I wonder what brazil plans to do with it's SSN and how it will fit in with the rest of it's navy. I personally think it will be used in a open ocean interdiction role working with Brazil's P-3s.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
In my opinion Brazil would be better off building a sustainable military industrial complex first. Unfortunately, they have not proved to anyone they have.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Somebody mentioned that since India will most probably have SSNs soon, why shouldn't Brazil... guys have you checked the strength levels of the 2 respective navies ?? Despite huge delays and mishaps, India is bound to have 2 seriously operational aircraft carriers (vs one showcase ship with almost useless A4s in the Brazilian case). India is building several DDGs while Brazil doesn't have a single AAW ship with mid range SAMs. India has 10 Kilo and 4 type 209 so can afford to invest money and time into a SSN class, Brazil has 4+1 SSKs in all...
So my point is that Brazil, while fully entitled to build its own SSNs, has an encyclopedia-long list of priorities it should tackle in its armed forces before thinking of a SSN...

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Last time i check UK and France are nuclear weapon states. Apparently you still haven't grasped the gist of my argument....
I have grasped it, & that is blindingly obvious from the fact that I have succesfully (in all eyes except yours) refuted it. You stated that every nuclear state arms its SSNs with nuclear weapons. That is false, as I showed. You appear incapable of remembering your own arguments.

...
The fact remains that No non nuclear weapon state has ever produced a nuclear power submarine. You can come up with reasons as to why they haven't but if it was advantageous to do so it would have been done.
...
You are making the basic logical fallacy of assuming that correlation = causality. As Grand Danois states, that is false. In order to determine a cause, it is not enough to demonstrate a correlation. That is merely an indicator (not proof!) of a possible connection (not causality!). A correlation between A & B can be due to A causing B, B causing A, C causing both A & B, or chance. To determine which of these is the cause of the correlation, one must find the processes causing both A & B. I have tried to bring this debate to that level, by introducing into it some of the causes of some non-nuclear states choosing not to buy SSNs, but you persistently refuse to engage my arguments, instead parrotting your specious "correlation, therefore causality" line.

Either put up or shut up: give reasons (specific & real ones), or accept your error.

BTW, the U212 is the first submarine with decent range the Bundesmarine has operated. First commissioned 2005. Mainly intended for Baltic & North Sea operations, so the range is overkill, but handy for export customers. But note that range is achieved at 8 knots, surfaced. It's transit range in benign conditions, not combat range, which is pretty limited - 420 nautical miles at 8 knots submerged. A big improvement on the Type 205 or 206, but not exactly suitable for oceanic operations.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
420 nautical miles at 8 knots submerged.
... without exposing itself by getting near the surface to snorkel.

The fact remains that No non nuclear weapon state has ever produced a nuclear power submarine.
However, two non-nuclear-weapon states have produced nuclear-powered ships. Germany and Japan - and though Japan had a number of problems with the reactor, it went rather well in Germany.

The German FDR reactor (pretty much a US export, derived from that of NS Savannah) would have needed quite some downsizing for a SSN though still.
 
I have grasped it, & that is blindingly obvious from the fact that I have succesfully (in all eyes except yours) refuted it. You stated that every nuclear state arms its SSNs with nuclear weapons. That is false, as I showed. You appear incapable of remembering your own arguments.
Read my previous posts. I clearly mention a non nuclear weapon state producing a SSN and deploying conventional weapons. Please point out where i post otherwise.





BTW, the U212 is the first submarine with decent range the Bundesmarine has operated. First commissioned 2005. Mainly intended for Baltic & North Sea operations, so the range is overkill, but handy for export customers. But note that range is achieved at 8 knots, surfaced. It's transit range in benign conditions, not combat range, which is pretty limited - 420 nautical miles at 8 knots submerged. A big improvement on the Type 205 or 206, but not exactly suitable for oceanic operations.
Interesting you called them Short-range before when provided with evidence otherwise, you are calling the range overkill now.
 
However, two non-nuclear-weapon states have produced nuclear-powered ships. Germany and Japan - and though Japan had a number of problems with the reactor, it went rather well in Germany.

The German FDR reactor (pretty much a US export, derived from that of NS Savannah) would have needed quite some downsizing for a SSN though still.
I am aware of Japanese putting a nuclear reactor on the Mutsu which was dogged with technical and political problems however as mention in my quote which you used i am refering to putting a reactor in a SSN.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Massive new oil and natural gas finds in the Atlantic Ocean have also made maritime defense a priority.
The flare-up between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela has highlighted volatility in the region.
"It is clear we have problems on the frontier and we are attending to them," General Barros Moreira, newly appointed military attache to Brazil's U.N. mission in Geneva, said in a recent interview posted on the armed forces Web site.
..Of the navy's 21 warships, only 10 are in operation. ..
The French deal, agreed in principle, involves fighter jets, helicopters and a $600 million Scorpene-class submarine.
Brazil wants to obtain French technology to build the submarine and aircraft itself rather than make a straight purchase, stimulating a domestic arms industry which has declined since the 1964-1985 military dictatorship.
"We made clear to both the French and the Russians that we were not interested in buying ready-made products and services off the shelf," said Mangabeira Unger, a former professor at Harvard University. "We said we are interested in joint ventures that contemplate opportunities for joint production."
U.S. risk analysis firm Stratfor questioned the wisdom of the naval program.
"While recent offshore oil and natural gas discoveries have made the issue more germane, the cost of Brazil's nuclear sub program and its aircraft carrier investments lack strategic objectives," it said in a recent report.
Because of its huge size, Brazil could project power across the continent from land bases at much lower cost, Stratfor said.
But Brazilian military officials and experts insist the submarine should be a priority.
"The question of submarines or airplanes doesn't exist. If we need to buy airplanes, buy airplanes, but we cannot drop the submarine,"
said Eliezer Rizzo de Oliveira of the University of Campinas' strategic studies department.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7360645
I hope this is a convincing argument, stright from Brazilians themselves! Actually, their situation is becoming very similar to India's!
 

contedicavour

New Member
I hope this is a convincing argument, stright from Brazilians themselves! Actually, their situation is becoming very similar to India's!
Well good luck to them then... building a Scorpene will take them at least 8 years unless they just assemble components straight out of France.
Building a SSN out of the Scorpene hull will take even 10+ years.
In the meanwhile their surface navy will disappear unless supplemented by cheap second hand transfers.
If I were Brazilian I would be really clueless about what the hell is going on in the armed forces' top layer.

cheers

cheers
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Here's a link to an official document issued by the Brazilian Navy on it's nuclear program. The document is in Portuguese and at the end requests funding (~R$1 Billion) to conclude ongoing projects by 2014 when a nuclear plant for a submarine may be decided:

https://www.mar.mil.br/pnm/pnm.htm
 
Top