Brazil building own nuclear submarine

[drg]

Here:
www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03232022.htm
Well, I'm surprised...

[kato]

I'm not really surprised that they're finally doing it.

Brazil has a treaty with the IAEA that they may explicitly nuclear propulsion for submarines since 1991. The program itself was already going on by then, and by 1995, about US$1 billion had been spent on developing nuclear submarine propulsion. In the original planning, the first nuclear sub was supposed to be completed by 1995, but building it has been constantly postponed due to technical and financial problems as well as accusations of corruption in connection with the program.

Brazil's current subs (all U209-derived) are a bit small for the blue-water patrol task they're given. They still want to double the number of similar-sized diesel subs however, in addition to the planned nuclear project.
The nuclear submarine project will first produce a diesel sub to test the indigenously-designed hull, then two more units are planned to be built with nuclear reactors. Or at least that's what they were still planning in 2004.

The hint at "French technology" in the article is rather interesting though, maybe they're planning to buy some French hulls and fit them with reactors. Wonder how well that'll work.

[XaNDeR]

Interesting ....

[contedicavour]

I'm skeptical about this. The carrier is without operational catapults and with only 4 flying Skyhawks with basic equipment. The ex USN DDs (Para class) are going without replacement. The Barroso follow-on of the Inhauma still exists in only 1 ship vs the 16 once planned.
SSKs on the other hand are now 5 ie close to historical maximum, and they are almost entirely made in Brazil despite German design.
Why all of a sudden spend huge sums on a SSN which would require again foreign help ?? if the Brazilians have in mind a customized version of Barracuda class SSN then they'd better start saving money, it costs a fortune !

cheers

[swerve]

Unless they can get an increase in military spending (unrealistic - Brazil has too many people on the state payroll with nothing to do except defend their salaries for that), or shoot half the officers in the armed forces*, just another pipe dream.

*Purely to save money. Too many officers drawing generous pay with nothing to do except defend their positions.

[Izzy1]

If memory serves and I may be wrong here, didn't Brazil and Argentina briefly explore a joint SSN programme back in the early 1990s? Probably no more than a feasibility study granted.

Agree with Conte, SSNs cost and Brazil has more pressing requirements.

[radiosilence]

Well Venezuela is plannning to get new SSKs and other equiptment. I am not surprise that Brazil is increasing it military spending but i am suprise in the way that they are spending it. Nuclear Subs are very costly to maintain.

The Brazilians might be interested in purchasing the SCALP Naval cruise missile to deploy in these subs. I would think that having the ability to deploy Cruise Missiles would be one of the key requirements for this project.

[swerve]

...The Brazilians might be interested in purchasing the SCALP Naval cruise missile to deploy in these subs. ...

They might be interested, but France is a signatory of the MTCR, so won't sell it to them. The range is too long: breaches the treaty limit. They'd have to develop the technology for a cruise missile themselves, or buy it from a non-signatory.

[nero]

I'm not really surprised that they're finally doing it.

Brazil has a treaty with the IAEA that they may explicitly nuclear propulsion for submarines since 1991. The program itself was already going on by then, and by 1995, about US$1 billion had been spent on developing nuclear submarine propulsion. In the original planning, the first nuclear sub was supposed to be completed by 1995, but building it has been constantly postponed due to technical and financial problems as well as accusations of corruption in connection with the program.

Brazil's current subs (all U209-derived) are a bit small for the blue-water patrol task they're given. They still want to double the number of similar-sized diesel subs however, in addition to the planned nuclear project.
The nuclear submarine project will first produce a diesel sub to test the indigenously-designed hull, then two more units are planned to be built with nuclear reactors. Or at least that's what they were still planning in 2004.

The hint at "French technology" in the article is rather interesting though, maybe they're planning to buy some French hulls and fit them with reactors. Wonder how well that'll work.

.

brazil doesn't have any enemies off the soccer-pitch

why do they need a nuclear-sub??

it's nothing but pure- muscle-flexing !!

i think brazil has taken the idea of being south-america's only potent military-poer , a bit too seriously.

kindly elaborate on the brazilian programme , if posisble.

.

[radiosilence]

They might be interested, but France is a signatory of the MTCR, so won't sell it to them. The range is too long: breaches the treaty limit. They'd have to develop the technology for a cruise missile themselves, or buy it from a non-signatory.

Brazil is also a partner of the MTCR. I was thinking of an export version that will be below the 300 KM range.

[swerve]

Brazil is also a partner of the MTCR. I was thinking of an export version that will be below the 300 KM range.

That's possible.

[Thery]

.

brazil doesn't have any enemies off the soccer-pitch

why do they need a nuclear-sub??

it's nothing but pure- muscle-flexing !!

i think brazil has taken the idea of being south-america's only potent military-poer , a bit too seriously.

kindly elaborate on the brazilian programme , if posisble.

.

That is the same question I had in mind. The whole South America region is relatively peaceful. Why of sudden develop SSN? Even if Brazilian wants maintain is military superior over nearby countries, will it be more logic to just increase surface naval strength instead SSN?:confused:

[Musashi_kenshin]

Half a billion US$ isn't going to get them far. It will keep the project alive, but it will take a lot more money before they can get into a position to merely construct a class, let alone have boats enter service.

I do wonder if their priorities are a little mixed up.

[jennery587]

who's next brazil have nuclear weapon

[Waylander]

They had a nuclear weapons program back in the days of cold war (I think with South African support) but stopped it for various reasons.

[radiosilence]

who's next brazil have nuclear weapon

I highly doubt that they have Nuclear Weapons but they have the technology base where if they choose to build the bomb, it wouldn't be very diffucult.

[jennery587]

Mod edit: Sorry. Those kinds of comparisons are going nowhere. Deleted.

/GD

[nero]

who's next brazil have nuclear weapon

.

it sounds funny, but chile may be next,

considering the fact that chile has already acquired Scorpene-SSKs & is in talks with france to buy either SMX-23 or barracuda SSN.

i wonder why all of a sudden these south-american countries r vying for naval power, that too all of a sudden.


.

[kinggodzilla87]

good for them

[ozirislucio]

:duel Não se preoucupem com a gente, e sim com o Iraque e futuramente a Venezuela.

[mexsoldier]

i think brazil is doing this only because caution, venezuela is getting dangerous neighbor, brazil has enough resources to start a nuclear program, but it could be the end of the '' relatively peaceful'' south america, if brazil starts a nuclear program, venezuela will do the same.

[contedicavour]

.

it sounds funny, but chile may be next,

considering the fact that chile has already acquired Scorpene-SSKs & is in talks with france to buy either SMX-23 or barracuda SSN.

i wonder why all of a sudden these south-american countries r vying for naval power, that too all of a sudden.


.

Chile has finished renovating its SSK force for now, with the new Scorpene and the 2 German 209s renovated. Any follow-on acquisition is only speculation so far. They have though a strange tendency to procure from different countries batches of 2 subs : Oberons and 209s, then Scorpene... so the next acquisition could come from Germany again (214s to replace 209s).

cheers

[sashikanth]

gr8 goin Brazil.:nutkick

[robsta83]

gr8 goin Brazil.:nutkick

What is the point of all your one liners? Surely you can think of something intelligent to add to the conversation, or are you just trying to get your post count up?

[Firehorse]

I hope this article will make the whole thing a lot clearer to some:..Brazil's Defense Minister, Nelson Jobim, spoke at a military conference in Rio de Janeiro in support of building a nuclear submarine, claiming that such a weapons system was needed to defend recently discovered off-shore oil reserves.
"When you have a large natural source of wealth discovered in the Atlantic, it's obvious you need the means to protect it," Jobim said.
The Brazilian military had sought the development of a nuclear submarine during the period of the dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1964 to 1985. .. Last July, Lula announced the appropriation of US$ 540 million to fund the navy's nuclear enrichment program, the first installment of what is expected to be more than US$ 1.2 billion for the building of a nuclear submarine.
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/10003/1/

If their friend India desires SSNs, why not Brazil? There are a few unsettled old disputes in S.America, and it shouldn't really surprise anyone that they want nuclear subs. How many people know that, besides large coastline, Brazil has more land area than the continental US?

[kilo]

Do you think Brazil would come up with a totally new design or do you think they will base their sub on another design.

[Firehorse]

IMO, if India can get help from Russia, Brazil can get help from France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubis_class_submarine)- their São Paulo CV is an ex-FN Foch.
"The transference of the Ship-Aerodrome São Paulo to the Operative Sector of the Navy adds to our naval power an important magnification in its ability of defense of the Brazilian interests at sea. A country as ours, possessing an extensive coast, with more than 7 thousand kilometers of coast, requires a naval power compatible with its stature in the international scene. Today, as before, Brazil is concerned about implementing concrete measures that offer the nation the guarantee of respect to its sovereignty. .. Few countries, even today, have the capacity to operate with efficiency in the high seas. It is important that Brazil continues to be one of them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAe_S%C3%A3o_Paulo

If they are to get it sooner (& for le$$) rather than later, then India is a good example to follow. Future will tell- I can't say with 100% certainty what their design process will be based on.

Brazil Eyes Nuclear Sub to Defend Oil (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDDoyBU14OlsVxvDiQVCHvCHhfEAD8SUTBE00)

[Firehorse]

The US is jumping on the bandwagon! I guess the goal is to counterbalance Venezuela.
Lockheed Martin To Modernize Brazilian Navy Submarine Force (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer/navy/printer_Lockheed_Martin_To_Modernize_Brazilian_Nav y_Submarine_Force.php)

Brazil is seeking to buy military technology from France that could help it become the first country in Latin America to have a nuclear submarine, the Defense Ministry said on Monday. ..Brazil currently has five conventionally powered submarines.
If an agreement results in the construction of a nuclear submarine, then "Brazil will surely become the first country in Latin America to have one," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan research group.
Ramos said Brazil wants to establish a strategic partnership with France to transfer technology. France is interested in Brazilian know-how on jungle warfare and "the use of electronic equipment in the humidity of tropical rain forests," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012801801.html

Possible Brazil-France Alliance Confirmed (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B4E35FBA9-D259-4956-9F15-C295A024E121%7D&language=EN)

[Manfred2]

Which do yo think would be more useful for blockading Venezula in the event of war, a little carrier or an SSN?

Venezuala has f-16s, by the way.

[kilo]

Unless Brazil buys F-18s or navalized Rafale they can't do much against F-16. Also I'd be more worried about Venezuela's Su-30mk2. So if they do get new aircraft for thier carrier they can't do it half way.

[AegisFC]

Which do yo think would be more useful for blockading Venezula in the event of war, a little carrier or an SSN?

Venezuala has f-16s, by the way.

Yeah but can Venezuela get enough parts for their F-16's to keep them operational without cannibalizing parts?

[Firehorse]

IMO, they would just be very happy with Su-30s and may sell their old F-16s for parts. i don't have any inside info. on that. There is a regional arms race taking off- even without blockading scenarios everyone wants to look tough!

[swerve]

IMO, they would just be very happy with Su-30s and may sell their old F-16s for parts. ...

US conditions of sale forbid it without specific US permits, & the conditions apply to buyers as well as sellers. The F-16s are only useful as parts sources to an existing operator which is already under embargo, & AFAIK there aren't any at the moment.

[Firehorse]

Well, Mr. Chavez treatened to sell them to Iran or China- despite prohibitions. The embargo on spare parts was imposed in violation of the contract- according to his reasoning- so they'll "get even". They could just sell those planes to black market dealers if there should be dire need for them. Ideally, the US should buy them back, upgrade and then resell them to those AFs that may want them. Indeed, the USAF itself could use them for AD/adversary roles while the F-15s are being "inspected" and/or permanently grounded!

[swerve]

Well, Mr. Chavez treatened to sell them to Iran or China- despite prohibitions. The embargo on spare parts was imposed in violation of the contract- according to his reasoning- so they'll "get even". They could just sell those planes to black market dealers if there should be dire need for them. Ideally, the US should buy them back, upgrade and then resell them to those AFs that may want them. Indeed, the USAF itself could use them for AD/adversary roles while the F-15s are being "inspected" and/or permanently grounded!

You didn't get it. There's nothing physically to stop Venezuela selling them, but there's nobody out there to buy them. A black market only exists where there are buyers.

The USA will not buy them back, for obvious political reasons.

[Firehorse]

I know, but theoreticaly it could happen. If, for instance, Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory) or Mexico (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=121676) (both are current or future F-16 operators) improve their relations with Venezuela, then, "if there is a will, there is a way!"
Let's get to the topic or just take a break intil there is more is in open sources about Brazilian SSN project!

[gf0012-aust]

I know, but theoreticaly it could happen. If, for instance, Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory) or Mexico (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=121676) (both are current or future F-16 operators) improve their relations with Venezuela, then, "if there is a will, there is a way!"


You are obviously clueles as to the impact it would have on other FMS sales to either country if they breached FMS binding contractual obligations. Chile in particular would suffer through other military sales as some of their other foreign equipment is via NATO countries. There is an agreement that binds all NATO members on FMS that use other countries components.


Let's get to the topic or just take a break intil there is more is in open sources about Brazilian SSN project!

Considering that your last coment was to a Moderator, I'm guessing that he is fully clued up as to when and what is the margin of error to get back on topic. If you want to continue to deflect debate off topic, then start another thread. If you want to start another thread on this distraction, then I suggest that you do some homework on FMS and especially on the geopolitical relationship of Chile and Mexico to Venuzuela.

[Salty Dog]

The Brazilian carrier aviation and SSN programs are taking more than a lions share of an already small budget. Brazil has built frigates, corvettes and SSK. They should stick to those and develop a stronger MPA program.

[Salty Dog]

You are obviously clueles as to the impact it would have on other FMS sales to either country if they breached FMS binding contractual obligations. Chile in particular would suffer through other military sales as some of their other foreign equipment is via NATO countries. There is an agreement that binds all NATO members on FMS that use other countries components.

FMS contracts explicitly forbid transfer of US origin equipment without USG approval. Case in point was Kuwait's sale of A-4KU Skyhawks to Brazil years ago. That sale required USG approval.

In the case of NATO equipment (and even non-NATO), there may be US origin equipment that will require USG approval. There also may be equipment for NATO use only that will require approval of ALL NATO members (even more difficult than just the USG). All the NATO origin ships transferred to Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, etc. arrived stripped of much their C3I gear for those reasons.

[Firehorse]

Argentina, Brazil to jointly build n-subs: ministers (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Argentina_Brazil_to_jointly_build_n-subs_ministers_999.html)
..an accord "to build a bi-national company to make the reactor" that would propel the submarines.
The Argentines are to bring their experience in building nuclear reactors to the deal, while the Brazilians will apply their knowledge in atomic combustion, he said.
The French input comes from a "strategic alliance" offered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
During discussions with Sarkozy last week, "we agreed to create good conditions for a bilateral company aimed at the non-nuclear part of the submarine,"..


I guess that this could be a win-win situation for the parties involved. jointly they can pull it off, no doubt!

[contedicavour]

What a marvelous idea to waste money... Argentina hasn't had a new ship in more than a decade (just completing the 5th and 6th Meko140 of the early 1990s doesn't count...), its MEKOs are getting old and so are their 3 remaining SSKs and now they would want to start building SSNs ??

By the way, France is trying to sell SSN technology to Brazil.

cheers

[Salty Dog]

Do you think Brazil would come up with a totally new design or do you think they will base their sub on another design.

Brazil has been working on their nuclear submarine project for more than a decade. It has been on and off again several times. I don't know if any new design is in the works, but the original concept was a Type 212 hull with a nuclear powerplant. That's right, just a SSK hull with a nuclear plant.

As far as a joint Argentina-Brazil SSN, it's not going to happen because it's just not true. There is nothing in the Brazilian press about this. The Brazilian Defense Minister was most likely mis-interpreted. What he suggested is that Brazil and Argentina cooperate on developing nuclear reactors for electric powerpants.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/25/america/LA-GEN-Brazil-Argentina-Nuclear-Sub.php

The Brazilian Navy plans to spend R$5.8 billion (US$3.4 billion) during the next six years for ship and aircraft modernization, mainly upgrades. 1st on the list is acquisition of heavyweight torpedoes and upgrades to their SSK. Raytheon was awarded the contract for Mk 48 torpedoes and likewise Lockheed Martin for the SSK upgrades.

It will be interesting to see how far Brazil will go with funding and construction of their SSN. At least Argentina won't be wasting it's money on this one.

[radiosilence]

Why does Brazil need a nuclear Sub? It seems like they are planning to acquire nuclear weapons.

[swerve]

Why does Brazil need a nuclear Sub? It seems like they are planning to acquire nuclear weapons.

What connection do you see between a nuclear-powered submarine and a nuclear-armed submarine? :confused:

[radiosilence]

What connection do you see between a nuclear-powered submarine and a nuclear-armed submarine? :confused:

How many non-nuclear weapon states have nuclear power subs?

[swerve]

How many non-nuclear weapon states have nuclear power subs?

Irrelevant. Most of the nuclear-powered subs around the world are conventionally-armed, & there have been nuclear-armed but conventionally-powered subs. There is no logical link between the power source & armament.

Brazil does not have an active nuclear weapons project, nor does it have, nor is it developing, submarine-launched delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

A knee-jerk reaction to the word "nuclear" does not make a case.

[radiosilence]

Irrelevant. Most of the nuclear-powered subs around the world are conventionally-armed, & there have been nuclear-armed but conventionally-powered subs. There is no logical link between the power source & armament.

Brazil does not have an active nuclear weapons project, nor does it have, nor is it developing, submarine-launched delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

A knee-jerk reaction to the word "nuclear" does not make a case.

I dont agree with your rationale. There is no precedence where non-nuclear weapon states build nuclear powered subs. Why do think more non-nuclear weapon states haven't opt for nuclear subs?

Brazil had covert nuclear weapons program which can be started up again very quickly if they choose to do. They have infrastructure in place.

[swerve]

I dont agree with your rationale. There is no precedence where non-nuclear weapon states build nuclear powered subs. Why do think more non-nuclear weapon states haven't opt for nuclear subs?

Brazil had covert nuclear weapons program which can be started up again very quickly if they choose to do. The have infrastructure in place.

There is no precedent, but so what? There was no precedent for the first nuclear-powered sub, there was no precedent for the first nuclear-armed sub. Precedent isn't a valid argument, or a reason, on its own. Consider why something is being done, & why something might be done. Brazils nuclear weapons programme was under the military dictatorship, & was ended as soon as democracy was restored. Since then, Brazil has signed the NPT, & wrote renunciation of nuclear weapons into its constitution 20 years ago.

To some extent, Brazils programme was a response to Argentinas, & vice-versa. Both countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons a few years after the restoration of democracy, & made a mutual inspection agreement. Argentine has since signed the NPT. The main reasons for Brazils pursuit of nuclear weapons (regional rivalry & the ambitions of the armed forces) have therefore been removed or suppressed.

[radiosilence]

There is no precedent, but so what?
It might not be beneficial for a non nuclear weapon state to use a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons hence no other non nuclear weapon states are building nuclear powered subs.
Brazils nuclear weapons programme was under the military dictatorship, & was ended as soon as democracy was restored. Since then, Brazil has signed the NPT, & written renunciation of nuclear weapons into its constitution.

To some extent, Brazils programme was a response to Argentinas, & vice-versa. Both countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons a few years after the restoration of democracy, & made a mutual inspection agreement. Argentine has since signed the NPT. The main reasons for Brazils pursuit of nuclear weapons (regional rivalry & the ambitions of the armed forces) have therefore been removed or suppressed
I am aware of the reasons/history of Brazil past attempt to get nuclear weapons. I mentioned it to highlight the point that they have the technology base to build nuclear weapons in short period of time.

[swerve]

It might not be more beneficial to use a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons hence no other non nuclear weapons are building nuclear powered subs.

I am aware of the reasons for Brazil past attempt to get nuclear weapons. I mention it to highlight the point that they have the technology base to build nuclear weapons in short period of time.

Canada had a project to acquire nuclear-powered subs once, but canned it. The justification was to enable patrols in the Canadian high arctic all year round. Look for reasons: what non-nuclear state has the perceived need for the capabilities that nuclear power gives to subs, & does not have political, technical or financial barriers to acquiring SSNs? None, at the moment. Japan, for example, could use them, has the technology to build them, but can't for political reasons. There are different sets of circumstances for different countries, not the general rule you think you see.

If every country with the technological base had nukes, there'd be dozens of nuclear-armed states, including Germany, Japan, Sweden, Canada, Italy & Australia. Again, not relevant. You suggested Brazil had the intention, which is a different thing altogether, & is what we've been debating. Brazils capabilities are not in doubt.

[radiosilence]

Canada had a project to acquire nuclear-powered subs once, but canned it. The justification was to enable patrols in the Canadian high arctic all year round. Look for reasons: what non-nuclear state has the perceived need for the capabilities that nuclear power gives to subs, & does not have political, technical or financial barriers to acquiring SSNs? None, at the moment. Japan, for example, could use them, has the technology to build them, but can't for political reasons. There are different sets of circumstances for different countries, not the general rule you think you see.

If every country with the technological base had nukes, there'd be dozens of nuclear-armed states, including Germany, Japan, Sweden, Canada, Italy & Australia. Again, not relevant. You suggested Brazil had the intention, which is a different thing altogether, & is what we've been debating. Brazils capabilities are not in doubt.

I dont want to go off track. I will restate my main point,there is no precedent of a non-nuclear weapon state building a nuclear powered subs. There are a number of non nuclear weapons states with the technology base in place and having the financial resource to build nuclear powered subs but they choose not go down that path. Seems like there is not much of a benefit of having a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons.

[BilalK]

Regarding the Brazilian SSN...would France essentially give them the Barracuda hull or would they assist Brazil with its own design?

[KiwiRob]

Seems like there is not much of a benefit of having a nuclear powered sub armed with conventional weapons.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't most SSN's nuclear powered but not nuclear armed, now I agree that having a SSBN without nuclear weapons would be an unusal step but not an attack boat.

[contedicavour]

Let's say that if money were not a problem, Brazil might want a SSN because its coastline is huge and a SSN has a much longer autonomy.
However since defence budgets in Brazil ARE a problem, continuing to waste time and money on developing a SSN seems to me crazy.

IMHO spending priorities should be :
1. a new class of FFGs since the Niteroi (though modernized) are 70s vintage and the Broadsword batch 1 are early 80s
2. a new class of LPDs since Brazilian Marines are relying on decrepit ex USN amphibious ships
3. decide whether the Foch/Sao Paulo carrier is there just for showing the flag or if it is serious => ie get some modern planes on the deck, not ex Kuwaiti 70s vintage A4s with nothing better than AIM9G and iron bombs...
4. build a new class of OPVHs (like the Mexicans) to improve patrol capabilities
... and only then ...
5. increase the SSK strength beyond the 4+1 German design SSKs, but with more SSKs (2-3 for the price of a single SSN...)

cheers

[radiosilence]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't most SSN's nuclear powered but not nuclear armed, now I agree that having a SSBN without nuclear weapons would be an unusal step but not an attack boat.

Regarding Brazil's pursuit of nuclear powered sub which this debate is about,there hasn't been a case of a non nuclear weapon state building nuclear powered sub in 50 plus years since the inception of nuclear powered submarines. It seems a little odd that a country which had a covert nuclear weapons program in past is embarking on building a nuclear powered sub to arm it conventionally.

[KiwiRob]

Just because it hasn't been like this in the past doesn't mean it can't be like that in the future. If everyone always did what has always been done then no new ideas will ever be followed through. Brazil having an SSN isn't all that odd, they have a long coastline, recently discovered oil offshore so why not have a vessel which gives them the range to patrol what they have to patrol for a longer period of time.

[Salty Dog]

Let's say that if money were not a problem, Brazil might want a SSN because its coastline is huge and a SSN has a much longer autonomy.
However since defence budgets in Brazil ARE a problem, continuing to waste time and money on developing a SSN seems to me crazy.

IMHO spending priorities should be :
1. a new class of FFGs since the Niteroi (though modernized) are 70s vintage and the Broadsword batch 1 are early 80s
2. a new class of LPDs since Brazilian Marines are relying on decrepit ex USN amphibious ships
3. decide whether the Foch/Sao Paulo carrier is there just for showing the flag or if it is serious => ie get some modern planes on the deck, not ex Kuwaiti 70s vintage A4s with nothing better than AIM9G and iron bombs...
4. build a new class of OPVHs (like the Mexicans) to improve patrol capabilities
... and only then ...
5. increase the SSK strength beyond the 4+1 German design SSKs, but with more SSKs (2-3 for the price of a single SSN...)

cheers

I agree the Brazil SSN effort is a time and money sink. It won' t be easy to kill and should continue to survive like the USA V-22 program and India's LCA.

There is a twist to Brazil's SSN program. They are taking an SSK design (perhaps a Scorpene after the French have pledged assistance) and swapping out the conventional propulsion plant for a nuclear one. The Russians are working on a similar project with a Nurka reactor to possibly power the Kilo class.

[radiosilence]

Just because it hasn't been like this in the past doesn't mean it can't be like that in the future.
Perhaps the benefits don't justify building nuclear power Subs(for non nuclear weapon states) and arming it with conventional weapons which is why it hasn't been done in 50 plus years. There are quite a few countries with just as good of a technology base and are/were in better financial position than Brazil is yet they have choosen not to go down that path.

If everyone always did what has always been done then no new ideas will ever be followed through. see above.

Brazil having an SSN isn't all that odd, they have a long coastline, recently discovered oil offshore so why not have a vessel which gives them the range to patrol what they have to patrol for a longer period of time
Modern SSKs are quite capable of doing the job. Australia and Japan are good examples.

[Grand Danois]

Considering that the USN and RN use their SSN for ASW/battlegroup escort and to fire conventional cruise missiles at land targets.

Access denial á la Falklands...

Nuclear weapons is not the raison d'etre of the SSN.

[swerve]

Perhaps the benefits don't justify building nuclear power Subs(for non nuclear weapon states) and arming it with conventional weapons which is why it hasn't been done in 50 plus years. There are quite a few countries with just as good of a technology base and are/were in better financial position than Brazil is yet they have choosen not to go down that path.
....

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. You keep repeating the same line, & ignoring all counter-arguments. 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) - and none of these actually has a bigger real GDP.


Modern SSKs are quite capable of doing the job. Australia and Japan are good examples.

Already addressed. See above. Japan - a political choice, not military, which is why Japan has built the worlds biggest, longest-range SSKs. Without that political bar, the JMSDF would probably have built SSNs decades ago.

[contedicavour]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[radiosilence]

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.

[Grand Danois]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) - Correlation does not imply causation.

Causation has to be demonstrable - there has to be an explanation, not just an observation.

[swerve]

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]

GDP comparison: India (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html)'s $2.965 trillion (2007 est.) , Brazil (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html) $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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/12/israel1), 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!

[radiosilence]

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. ;)

[Sea Toby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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.

[radiosilence]

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.

[radiosilence]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sea Toby]

As I have said before, as long as the Latin American navies can buy used frigates at the end of their lives or at their mid-lives from European navies for less than they can buy and build brand new OPVs, they will. The lone exception recently has been Venezuela with its oil wealth. Unfortunately, used submarines are not available on the used market as used frigates are. Therefore, Latin America's buys and builds of new submarines.

While new builds of OPVs are more expensive than used frigates, the used frigates have much more punch than new OPVs. Its not as if new OPVs costs a whole lot more than the used frigates. I believe their economies would be better off if they built new OPVs instead of tossing funds to other nations for used frigates.

You would think for that amount of money Brazil could build a small LHD/LPD flat top to replace its old Foch aircraft carrier. But again, as long as Brazil can buy used American or European amphibious ships, they will.

[Firehorse]

I don't think they are burning with desire to have a "blue water" navy, like China now. The PLAN has been, until about 20 years ago, a coastal force with emphasis on subs and high speed patrol craft. The Brazilians, IMO, figured that they don't need the latest surface ships more than they need the latest subs, following the PRC's example with a twist. For sea control, continental shelf, and SLOC protection they can also use land-based aircraft -their Atlantic coastline is the longest, with plenty of strategic depth (http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/BRAZIL-W1.gif)!

[gf0012-aust]

their Atlantic coastline is the longest, with plenty of strategic depth (http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/BRAZIL-W1.gif)!


strategic depth has to converge with tactical depth or it's meaningless

[Firehorse]

Perhaps Su-35s or something similar will give them that!

[gf0012-aust]

Perhaps Su-35s or something similar will give them that!

it's not an issue of looking at individual capability. thats why we ban "plaform a vs platform b" comparisons in here

strategic depth has to converge with tactical depth and both are governed by logistics.

Don't look at the platform, look at the logistical impediments and weighting in relation to the introduction or use of that platform with the rest of a countries "weight to bear"

strategic depth, tactical depth, platforms etc have to be coherent and symbiotic. bringing in a new "x" platform disrupts rather than contributes if the rest of the capability ledger is out of whack. That includes training, support, spares, vendor reliablity, capability vacuum, support systems etc....

The plane is 5% of the countries capability

[Firehorse]

So, since they don't have those things, in your opinion, they should invest in new surface ships? Maybe they will do it later, but for now they apparently want subs- in a war, they are harder to find & sink!

[Sea Toby]

But the real threat to these Latin American nations is internal strife, possible coups of which there have been many, and illegal drug traffic, and kidnappers. The Pope is available for any border disputes, along with the Organization of American states.

Recently Colombia and Venezuela almost came to blows. It was interesting that the other nations took the attitude that they wouldn't allow a war on their continent. From Mexico in the north all the way to Argentina and Chile to the south.

While they may need new submarines for the naval sea denial, a submarine does not enforce their fisheries, or their economic zones or fight the illegal drug traffic as well as surface ships. Much like Australia, all of these navies would be better off with with surface ships.

[contedicavour]

So, since they don't have those things, in your opinion, they should invest in new surface ships? Maybe they will do it later, but for now they apparently want subs- in a war, they are harder to find & sink!

Well yes precisely. If they invest in SSKs their surface fleet will disappear in approx 10 years : the Niterois, though modernized, are 35-40 year old ships. The Broadsword batch 1 are also beyond the 30 year threshold. The Foch/Sao Paulo is 45 years old. Building a new FFG takes at least 6 years. It's mathematical, it's now or never that Brazil has to spend on their surface fleet.
Otherwise they'll be reduced to trying to buy second hand 1980s vintage French Leygues or Italian Maestrale, 30 years old and heavily used during their service lifes.

cheers

[Sea Toby]

But as long as the Europeans sell the Latin Americans used frigates, they will want to buy new submarines. No one will sell them useful used submarines. Either the Dutch, the French, the Italians, and the British will sell them used frigates. And then there are the Egyptians and Pakistanis needing newer used frigates. If the used frigate store closed, then the Latin Americans will build OPVs and/or corvettes.

They simply can not afford to buy both new frigates and new submarines at the same time. As it is they can easily buy four used frigates for the price of one new submarine. There are much more used frigates in the used ship marketplace than used submarines.

And with fighter jets becoming much more expensive, they can not afford new fighter jets either, easily. The only nation that can afford a few new frigates and fighter jets is oil rich Venezuela. They are smacking their lips in Latin America expecting to buy used F-16s and Mirages on the cheap. Most likely the Brazilians can not wait to buy some F/A-18s on the cheap too. They will become available long before the Rafaels. The other solution is to buy Russian aircraft. But like the West, Russia wants to sell them new aircraft, not used. Frankly, I am amazed the Brazilians have not purchased New Zealand's Skyhawks by now. Northrups's F-20 died because none of the Latin American nations bought it, preferring to keep their F-5s.

[kato]

But as long as the Europeans sell the Latin Americans used frigates, they will want to buy new submarines. No one will sell them useful used submarines.

There quite simply isn't a market for used submarines in the first place, worldwide.

Only used subs sold in recent times were the four Upholders for Canada (and we know how that went...) and the six Kobbens for Poland (which are about 40 years old).

This is mostly because quite a number of countries - all that can finance it - continue to run sub fleets acquired in the late 70s to mid 80s. Which, with a bit more recent upgrades, will serve at least until the late 2010s.

In addition to that, almost all submarines in "main" fleets are run roughshod by the time they're decommissioned - barely any are less than 35-40 years old by that time, the mentioned Upholders being the big exception.

About the only subs i could think of that would even haven been sellable were the four Agostas decommissioned by France around 2000, and the Japanese Yushios around 2000-2005 and Uzushios around 1990-1995. Considering Japan isn't into selling at all, there'd only be four submarines on the market.
Although i bet Brazil would have liked 6-8 Yushios, properly refurbished and relabeled in Portuguese and English of course. :D

[Sea Toby]

I agree Kato. There aren't as many submarines on the used submarine market as much as there are used frigates, many of which can sail for several more years with tender loving care.

But building nuclear submarines when diesel subs are so much cheaper?

[Salty Dog]

More on the Brazilian nuclear submarine.

Brazil Plans to Invest in Latest Military Technology

By Heloiza Canassa and Andre Soliani

April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil will boost investments in the latest military technology to strengthen its armed forces, said Strategic Matters Minister Mangabeira Unger.

Latin America's biggest economy will buy the newest generation of jet fighters for the Air Force and build a nuclear submarine for the Navy, Unger told reporters today in Brasilia at a joint news conference with Defense Minister Nelson Jobim.

Brazil's defense buildup comes amid a military spending spree in South America. Colombia is buying 24 Israeli Kfir fighter jets. Ecuador will boost military spending 19 percent this year. Venezuela has signed deals for $4.4 billion in arms purchases including 24 Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and 38 combat and transport helicopters.

``Brazil doesn't face threats from any country, but we need to be prepared,'' Jobim told reporters.

Unger said Brazil's main military concern is the Amazon, where the country borders Venezuela, Colombia and Peru.

The region's importance for Brazil was heightened by recent disclosures that guerrillas from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia are operating across the border in Venezuela and Ecuador, said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy research group in Washington. A Colombian attack on a FARC base in Ecuador in March sent tensions soaring between the two countries and Venezuela, Ecuador's ally.

`Flare Up'

``The flare up in the Andes helped Brazil recognize that they aren't as well-positioned in the Amazon as they probably want to be,'' Hakim said by phone.

Jobim said the Defense Ministry is considering the purchase of jet fighters such as the French-made Rafale or U.S- made Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F35.

The country is also seeking an international partnership to help build a nuclear submarine. Brazil has started negotiations with the U.S., France, India, Russia and the U.K.

Brazil also will seek support from its neighbors to create a South American Defense Council to help coordinate the countries' military strategies, Jobim said.

He will visit Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez next week to discuss setting up the council, then travel to Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The Brazilian initiative follows Venezuela and Ecuador's dispatch of troops to the Colombian border after the cross- border raid killed 26 people.

The FARC would be met ``with bullets'' should they cross into Brazilian territory, Jobim said.

[contedicavour]

More on the Brazilian nuclear submarine.

I certainly see the logic behind buying new fighter planes when your neighbours fly SU30s, but I still fail to see any logic behind the SSN. Renewing the surface fleet and thinking of buying new SSKs with SSM capability (U214 or Scorpene) should be the only logical next steps.

cheers

[werty]

The thort of brazil of all countries having a ssn is really not needed. The 1.2bn dollar programme should be spent on better things like health,education ect, but there to far stuck up there a$$ spending 25 billion dollars anualy on there military that there not lookin at there own people for gods sake there a bloody developing counrty (poor) fair enuff if they had money growing out of the tree

first post :D

[Salty Dog]

Brazil To Use Nuclear Submarine To Protect Oil Fields -Minister

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Brazil's government will use a planned nuclear-powered submarine to protect the country's offshore oil fields, Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said Wednesday.

According to the minister, Brazil will spend about 1 billion reals ($613 million) to build a nuclear submarine.

Jobim made the statement during televised testimony before a congressional committee. He said the submarine will be used exclusively for defense, and won't carry nuclear arms.

Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petroleo Brasileiro (PBR), or Petrobras, has made a number of important new offshore finds in recent months.

In November, Petrobras estimated recoverable reserves at its Tupi field in the pre-salt layer of the Santos Basin off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state at up to 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The company also has said that test wells in other Santos Basin blocks have confirmed the presence of oil.

-By Rogerio Jelmayer, Dow Jones Newswires; 5511-6847-4521; rogerio.jelmayer@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

June 04, 2008 14:35 ET (18:35 GMT)

The Brazil press also cites Minister Jobim saying the R$ Bi submarine will be built within ten years. There are also plans for 50 patrol boats. The main justifications for the SSN and patrol boats are to patrol their EEZ which Brazil hopes to extend from 200 Nm to 350 Nm.

[Firehorse]

Brazil spending $160M on nuclear propelled sub
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/29/international/i150749D11.DTL
(08-29) 17:22 PDT RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) --

Brazil will spend US$160 million by the end of next year on the development of a nuclear-propelled submarine to protect the oil reserves found recently off its coast, the defense minister said Friday.
The vessel — which officials hope to be complete by 2020 — would be the first nuclear-propelled submarine in Latin America. Brazil does not have nuclear weapons.
The submarine is the highlight of the Brazil's new defense plan — to be made public on Sept. 7.
Brazil is believed to be preparing to spend US$3.5 billion by the end of 2010 to upgrade its weapon systems, according to reports in the local media.

Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, speaking Friday in Rio de Janeiro, said the new defense plan includes provisions for a massive technology transfer from France — essential if Brazil hopes to have a nuclear submarine.
In February, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France would transfer technology to Brazil for construction of the diesel-powered Scorpene attack submarine. It will serve as a model for a nuclear sub, Brazilian officials have said.

I guess they intend to have both conventional and nuclear powered subs. A regional superpower must use nuclear technology for its defense- this becomes an axiom!

[Salty Dog]

I guess they intend to have both conventional and nuclear powered subs. A regional superpower must use nuclear technology for its defense- this becomes an axiom!

I disagree with the second part of your response as there are numerous other methods that Brazil can cost effectively "patrol their offshore oilfields". How can one argue that an SSN is a cost effective (if not practical means) for this type of patrol mission.

Brazil is stubbornly holding on to their SSN program that has already spanned two decades. AFAIK the reasons for this are more political than practical.

[harryriedl]

I disagree with the second part of your response as there are numerous other methods that Brazil can cost effectively "patrol their offshore oilfields". How can one argue that an SSN is a cost effective (if not practical means) for this type of patrol mission.

Brazil is stubbornly holding on to their SSN program that has already spanned two decades. AFAIK the reasons for this are more political than practical.

The Brazilian SSN program seems like one of those great Vaporware programs. How much money have they plowed into this program now?

[Salty Dog]

The Brazilian SSN program seems like one of those great Vaporware programs. How much money have they plowed into this program now?

AFAIK the funding value for the SSN program was not that big as you my think although I do not have any figures. Until a few years ago the Brazilian economy was very low and so was military expediture. During the past decade, navy priorities went to their fixed wing aircraft program (A-4 acquisition and ex-Foch CV) as well completing their SSKs. The SSN program was minimally funded to keep it alive and personnel retained.

Things have changed as the Brazilian economy is now a front burner. Recent offshore oil discoveries creates a larger maritime patrol requirement. The new offshore oilfields also promise increased royalties (funding) for navy projects.

Brazil's defense plan for major upgrades is due out on September 7. We should see some significant requirements.

[2S1]

AFAIK the funding value for the SSN program was not that big as you my think although I do not have any figures. Until a few years ago the Brazilian economy was very low and so was military expediture. During the past decade, navy priorities went to their fixed wing aircraft program (A-4 acquisition and ex-Foch CV) as well completing their SSKs. The SSN program was minimally funded to keep it alive and personnel retained.

Things have changed as the Brazilian economy is now a front burner. Recent offshore oil discoveries creates a larger maritime patrol requirement. The new offshore oilfields also promise increased royalties (funding) for navy projects.

Brazil's defense plan for major upgrades is due out on September 7. We should see some significant requirements.

Salty Dog, could this not spiral into another aspect of the current South American arms race though?

I'm sure the last time Brazil embarked on this venture, Argentina swiftly followed suite. Dare I speculate that Venezuala and Chile may respond this time? With several other South American states attempting to respond in near-kind?

Given the supremacy of Brazil within the region, is this prestige-value-only venture not possibly a step backward?