Brazilian navy launches new submarine

By MICHAEL ASTOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


View of the "Tikuna" submarine in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Thursday, March 9, 2005. The Brazilian navy launched the biggest and most advanced submarine ever built in Brazil Wednesday. The "Tikuna" will be able to dive 200 meters (660 feet) or more. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo)
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- The Brazilian navy launched the biggest and most advanced submarine ever built in Brazil Wednesday, an achievement that President Luiz Inacio da Silva said "makes Brazil and our navy proud."

The conventionally-powered submarine, named "Tikuna" after an Amazon Indian tribe, is the fourth submarine constructed in Brazil. It took nearly 10 years to build.

The submarine was christened by Angela Maria de Sousa Carvalho, the wife of navy chief Adm. Roberto de Guimaraes Carvalho. She gave a short speech and pressed a button that sent a bottle of champagne sliding down a rope to burst on the ship's black hull.

"This launch makes Brazil and our navy proud," Silva said in a statement read by a navy official. "Our shipbuilders have reached a level of technical capacity that is a credit to the Brazilian navy."

Silva attended the ceremony with Vice President and Defense Minister Jose Alencar but did not address the audience.

After the inauguration, Silva shook hands and spoke briefly with the men who built the submarine, which was begun in 1996. Then he took a brief tour of the vessel, which measures 200 feet long and 20 feet wide.

The Tikuna will be able to dive 660 feet or more. But the navy said it could not divulge how much deeper the submarine could dive because the information is classified.

The navy is expected to test the submarine until December, when it will officially join the Brazilian fleet.

According to the navy, only 15 countries are capable of building submarines, and Brazil is the only country in the Southern Hemisphere besides Australia with the technological know-how to build one.

The Tikuna is adapted from the German IKL-209 submarine but includes various innovations conceived by Brazilian engineers, the navy said.

Brazil has long hoped to produce a nuclear-powered submarine. The country's nuclear plans have been scaled down, but President Silva said in 2002 he would revive the submarine program.


Tech:

The Tikuna class submarine is equipped with very high capacity batteries developed by Varta and featuring glass fibre reinforced plastic lead acid battery cells.

Propulsion is diesel-electric with four MTU 12V 396 diesel engines providing 2.76MW.

This gives a 30% increased range compared to the four Tupi submarines.

The propulsion system provides a surface speed of more than 10 knots and a submerged speed of 24 knots.
The Tikuna is capable of an 11,000-mile range surfaced at an economical speed of 8 knots.
The range at 4 knots dived is in excess of 400 miles.

The Tikuna is equipped with eight bow tubes fitted with a swim-out discharge system.

16 torpedoes are carried, eight in the tubes and eight ready for reloading.

An anti-submarine torpedo which can be carried on the Tikuna submarines. The torpedoes have a range of 18km and speed of 45 knots.

The Tikuna is also capable of launching the BAE Systems Mark 24 Tigerfish Mod 1 or Mod 27 torpedo.

The Tigerfish has an acoustic seeker in the nose and is wire-guided.

Data is downloaded from the submarine weapon control station to the torpedo's onboard computer.

The torpedo is armed with a 134kg PBXN 105 warhead from BAE Systems.

As the torpedo reaches the closest distance to the target, a magnetic proximity fuse and an impact fuse detonates the warhead.

The speed of the torpedo is 25 knots in passive mode and 35 to 50 knots in active seeker mode.

The range of Tigerfish is within 14 to 40km.

The Tikuna is armed with Saab Bofors Torpedo 2000 heavyweight torpedo.

It can also be armed with MCF-01/100 acoustic-magnetic mines supplied by IPqM, which can be carried in lieu of torpedoes.

The submarine's weapon control system is BAE Systems KAFS-A 10 control system.

Cool

TEN YEARS to build a single sub?

I know even we can't crank them out like we did the Liberty Ships, but GEEZ!

The Tikuna will be able to dive 660 feet or more. But the navy said it could not divulge how much deeper the submarine could dive because the information is classified.

Yep. Right until she goes to sea and one of our boats is waiting....

WTF is their purpose for building submarines??

Tuna sub anyone?

Nice fodder for a Los Angeles class attack sub

Originally Posted By GanXta: Tuna sub anyone?

***groan***

I'm just quaking in my boots at the Brazilian Navy and their one sub.

Originally Posted By CRC: I'm just quaking in my boots at the Brazilian Navy and their one sub.

Gents, the Brazilians aren't the enemy...

I've been there, nice country, nice people.

They've got a Carrier, too, one of the old French boats. I saw their previous carrier (an old British ship) when I was there in '99.

Conventional meaning diesel electric. Long ago outdated. No threat whatsoever. Good training sub.

Originally Posted By MDC85: WTF is their purpose for building submarines??

Just a guess, but maybe national defense.

WTF is their purpose for building submarines??

Good Point.

Originally Posted By huggybro: Conventional meaning diesel electric. Long ago outdated. No threat whatsoever.

No.

Originally Posted By ASUsax: Gents, the Brazilians aren't the enemy... I've been there, nice country, nice people.

Very true, thanks to them there is such a thing as a Brazilian Bikini wax on women

Why?

Originally Posted By huggybro: Conventional meaning diesel electric. Long ago outdated. No threat whatsoever. Good training sub.

Thinking like that can get you killed.

D/E boats can be very quiet, small, and tend to be optimized for shallow water unlike our nuke boats that were designed for blue-water ops. Smaller countries can also afford to build a lot more of them for less money.

Someone posted a while back (probably Vito or KA3B) about naval exercises where some of these Long ago outdated and No threat whatsoever D/E boats managed to penetrate our ASW screens and sink U.S. carriers.

There is also talk of the U.S. Navy getting back into the D/E business.

Diesel Electric subs are for coastal defense and they are very good at that role. Countries with long coastlines (eg Canada, Brazil) find they are very cost effective.

They aren't as good as nuclear for long range force projection (ie launching missiles) due to range and speed. I guess they are typically smaller than nuclear subs, and a lot cheaper.

The modern diesel/electrics can be as quiet as the nuclear subs.

editted to add, bmick325 makes my point better than I did.

Originally Posted By KA3B: The propulsion system provides a surface speed of more than 10 knots and a submerged speed of 24 knots.

Is that a mistake?

Diesel subs don't usually go faster under water, do they?

Originally Posted By bmick325: Someone posted a while back (probably Vito or KA3B) about naval exercises where some of these Long ago outdated and No threat whatsoever D/E boats managed to penetrate our ASW screens and sink U.S. carriers.

I believe I saw that movie!

"Down Periscope".

"Welcome Aboard" - Capt. Dodge.

From what I have read, the Brazilian military has been anxiously searching for a mission. They face no internal or external threats. Debate in Brazil concerning national security policy has been practically nonexistent. Civil society continues to show a complete lack of interest in issues related to defense.

Building this sub was probably just a matter of national pride.

They plan on attacking foreign fishing boats in their waters? Who has the naval threat they are preparing for?

Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Originally Posted By KA3B: The propulsion system provides a surface speed of more than 10 knots and a submerged speed of 24 knots. Is that a mistake? Diesel subs don't usually go faster under water, do they?

No misprint. They are much more stable underwater, allowing greater speed.
Scott

Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Originally Posted By KA3B: The propulsion system provides a surface speed of more than 10 knots and a submerged speed of 24 knots. Is that a mistake? Diesel subs don't usually go faster under water, do they?

no thats standard ever since the guppy class. the teardrop shape makes them faster underwater than on top

Brazil wants to be the strongest of the South American countries. This is one way of telling the world that they have arrived.

subs are designed more for a offensive weapon not defensive. you want a fancy defensive weapon you build a ship everyone can see and run scared when it shoots at you. sub go out and kill another countries ships and cripples commerce like the nazi's did during the first and second war.

Originally Posted By WiDuker: WTF is their purpose for building submarines?? Good Point.

Are they going to attack the Falklands again? Hope not or else they won't have any subs left.

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots: The modern diesel/electrics can be as quiet as the nuclear subs.

Most modern diesel electrics are probably quieter than any nuclear sub. No way to get around the fact that turbines and pumps (on most nuclear subs, I know the Ohios are completely natural circulation) are going to be louder than a electric motor and a battery. Of course that only applies when they are on battery.

Originally Posted By Blued-Steel: Originally Posted By WiDuker: WTF is their purpose for building submarines?? Good Point. Are they going to attack the Falklands again? Hope not or else they won't have any subs left.

That was the argentinians

Kudos to them!


Building a submarine of that size is a HUGE undertaking, and I congratulate them for their success (so far....I'll hold final judgement until its been in the water a few years to see how it holds up).

And don't bash the Brazillians.....their womenz are HOT HOT HOT!

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack: Brazil wants to be the strongest of the South American countries. <snip>

Isn't that kind of like wanting to be the smartest Stooge?

Originally Posted By Blued-Steel: Originally Posted By WiDuker: WTF is their purpose for building submarines?? Good Point. Are they going to attack the Falklands again? Hope not or else they won't have any subs left.

That was Argentina vs. UK

Originally Posted By Blued-Steel: Originally Posted By WiDuker: WTF is their purpose for building submarines?? Good Point. Are they going to attack the Falklands again? Hope not or else they won't have any subs left.

That was Argentina.

why do they need a sub?

I think the question we're all asking ourselves is: Are there going to be beautiful, scantly dressed Brazilian women at the helm?

Originally Posted By Lonewalker: subs are designed more for a offensive weapon not defensive. you want a fancy defensive weapon you build a ship everyone can see and run scared when it shoots at you. sub go out and kill another countries ships and cripples commerce like the nazi's did during the first and second war.

Not Conventional subs, not anymore. In order to transit long stretches, they have to run thier engines - when they do that, they are LOUD. Any decent ASW force would kill them.

This type of sub is good for coastal defense and littoral ops. Sure, they can do the deep sea thing, but they aren't nearly as good at it.

If Brazil wanted to attack someone, they'd use airstrikes from their carrier.

FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role…


ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast.

ANdy

Originally Posted By Lonewalker: subs are designed more for a offensive weapon not defensive. you want a fancy defensive weapon you build a ship everyone can see and run scared when it shoots at you. sub go out and kill another countries ships and cripples commerce like the nazi's did during the first and second war.

News Flash There were no Nazi'z durring the 1st world war!

Things I learned by reading this thread:

Brazil attacked the Falkland Islands.

Nazis fought in the First World War.


ARFCOM: What have YOU learned today.

Av.

Originally Posted By WyattEarp: I think the question we're all asking ourselves is: Are there going to be beautiful, scantly dressed Brazilian women at the helm?

or dark tan nekid with bikini lines and some pooper poking

Originally Posted By Avalon01: Things I learned by reading this thread: Brazil attacked the Falkland Islands. Nazis fought in the First World War. ARFCOM: What have YOU learned today. Av.

"Don't stop him. He's on a roll." - Animal House

Originally Posted By PAEBR332: Originally Posted By Combat_Jack: Brazil wants to be the strongest of the South American countries. <snip> Isn't that kind of like wanting to be the smartest Stooge?

Brazil is refferred to as the regional economic powerhouse in South America. That is a significant amount of power to them. You might not have noticed. They are certainly enjoying it, however.

Originally Posted By Zaphod: TEN YEARS to build a single sub? I know even we can't crank them out like we did the Liberty Ships, but GEEZ! The Tikuna will be able to dive 660 feet or more. But the navy said it could not divulge how much deeper the submarine could dive because the information is classified. Yep. Right until she goes to sea and one of our boats is waiting....

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take is 8-10 years to pump out a carrier? (Yes I know a carrier takes considerably longer to make)

Originally Posted By MDC85: WTF is their purpose for building submarines??

Umm.... defense and also because they have every right to.

Originally Posted By vito113: FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role… ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast. ANdy

Honestly, I think that would be a foolish endevour. We shouldn't build Conventional subs, because then the Dems will say 'hey, they are cheaper, why do we need nukes?'.

And sooner or later, we won't have any nukes.

Plus, all our newest subs are almost as quiet as the best deseil boats - with a lot better sensors and firepower.

Both the British (now Canadian, I believe) Upholders and the new Aussie boats are NICE conventional subs, though. As are the Japanese boats. All top flight designs that we could produce if need be.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack: Originally Posted By PAEBR332: Originally Posted By Combat_Jack: Brazil wants to be the strongest of the South American countries. <snip> Isn't that kind of like wanting to be the smartest Stooge? Brazil is refferred to as the regional economic powerhouse in South America. That is a significant amount of power to them. You might not have noticed. They are certainly enjoying it, however.

Turn your humor switch to the "on" position.

I've been to Brazil numerous times. While it is indeed the largest economy in SA, it is still barely above a Third World country. And yes, I have been to plenty of true third world countries to be able to compare.

Originally Posted By ASUsax: Originally Posted By vito113: FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role… ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast. ANdy Honestly, I think that would be a foolish endevour. We shouldn't build Conventional subs, because then the Dems will say 'hey, they are cheaper, why do we need nukes?'. And sooner or later, we won't have any nukes. Plus, all our newest subs are almost as quiet as the best deseil boats - with a lot better sensors and firepower. Both the British (now Canadian, I believe) Upholders and the new Aussie boats are NICE conventional subs, though. As are the Japanese boats. All top flight designs that we could produce if need be.

Trouble with a nuclear boat is the size!!! They are big and need a lot of water… a 2,000 ton DE boat is considered big… they are ideal for inserting SpecOps forces.

ANdy

Originally Posted By Avalon01: Things I learned by reading this thread: Brazil attacked the Falkland Islands. Nazis fought in the First World War. ARFCOM: What have YOU learned today. Av.

Maybe he meant future nazis.

Originally Posted By vito113: Originally Posted By ASUsax: Originally Posted By vito113: FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role… ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast. ANdy Honestly, I think that would be a foolish endevour. We shouldn't build Conventional subs, because then the Dems will say 'hey, they are cheaper, why do we need nukes?'. And sooner or later, we won't have any nukes. Plus, all our newest subs are almost as quiet as the best deseil boats - with a lot better sensors and firepower. Both the British (now Canadian, I believe) Upholders and the new Aussie boats are NICE conventional subs, though. As are the Japanese boats. All top flight designs that we could produce if need be. Trouble with a nuclear boat is the size!!! They are big and need a lot of water… a 2,000 ton DE boat is considered big… they are ideal for inserting SpecOps forces. ANdy

TOTALLY agree with you there. I'd actually love to have a few, as well as some 'light' carriers.

I'm just afraid that the moment we build some, we'll stop building the big stuff. And that worry is enough for me to oppose it.

Originally Posted By vito113: FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role… ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast. ANdy

+1

Diesel subs are extremely dangerous if used in the right manner. I am hoping the US will go with a smaller nuclear sub for littoral warfare, as it still gives us deep sea capability with them.

Originally Posted By vito113: Originally Posted By ASUsax: Originally Posted By vito113: FWIW… the US Navy is actively considering the purchase of Conventional Submarines like this one with Air Independent Propulsion for Littoral Warfare role… ETA: And yes… British Diesel Electric Subs used to regularly penetrate US carrier groups ASW screens and score 'Kills' on US carriers in the OCEAN SAFARI exercises… of course the ASW force would usually then get the boat, but 'for exercise', the carrier was toast. ANdy Honestly, I think that would be a foolish endevour. We shouldn't build Conventional subs, because then the Dems will say 'hey, they are cheaper, why do we need nukes?'. And sooner or later, we won't have any nukes. Plus, all our newest subs are almost as quiet as the best deseil boats - with a lot better sensors and firepower. Both the British (now Canadian, I believe) Upholders and the new Aussie boats are NICE conventional subs, though. As are the Japanese boats. All top flight designs that we could produce if need be. Trouble with a nuclear boat is the size!!! They are big and need a lot of water… a 2,000 ton DE boat is considered big… they are ideal for inserting SpecOps forces. ANdy

there is nothing that requires a nuke sub to be big. Advances in nuclear power and propulsion technologies have made it childs play.

The problem is the expense of a nuclear power plant for a smaller, less capable submarine. The last estimates I read put it at 80% of the cost of a "full-size" ssn with about 65% of its combat power.

Thats the reason we are looking at diesels. The problem is its we ignore the human cost if we are ever forced to commit those diesel subs against a well prepared ASW screen.

I say stay nuke as well.