1st Ship reactor (built or went critical) | |||
United States | 1952 Ivy Mike | 1954 USS Nautilus | 1961 USS Enterprise 1962 Savannah |
Soviet/Russia | 1953 Joe 4 | 1957 November class | 1959 Lenin |
Britain | 1956-58 Grapple | 1960 HMS Dreadnought | |
France | 1968 Canopus | ||
China | 1967 Test No. 6 | 1970 Type 091 (401) | |
India | 1968 Shakti I | 2009 INS Arihant | |
Israel | 1968 Canopus (shared test assumed) | None. Dolphin SSKs used. | |
Germany | 1968 Otto Hahn | ||
Japan | 1972 Mutsu |
In the table above there is a pattern. Nuclear weapons powers achieved thermonuclear (H-Bomb) tests first, then they develop a submarine reactor. This is with the exception of Israel which is too small to build nuclear subs.
This may reveal the higher priority given to nuclear weapons. Also it is of little use launching an SSBN if it has no compact thermonuclear warheads to place on ballistic missiles.
The ability of Germany and Japan to develop ship reactors may indicate they have sufficient nuclear know-how to develop submarine reactors and thermonuclear weapons.
Brazil has not yet launched a submarine reactor but is considered capable of building nuclear weapons fairly quickly.
Various types of information sharing has been known to happen between the 5 official nuclear powers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAPANESE NUCLEAR SHIPS - NO OFFICIAL PROGRESS
The Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) has published reports on propulsion reactors but has not built any since the Mutsu nuclear propelled cargo ship in the 1970s. Japan is not currently planning development of a nuclear submarine.
Plans exist for a nuclear reactor known as "DRX" for a deep submergence vehicle . See the proposed DRXs reactor line drawing.
A Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) reactor known as "MRX" that was intended to be 3 times more powerful than the Mutsu's reactor. MRX was being researched, from the 1990s for use in a far larger ship.
[Pete tracked down http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/058/31058473.pdfpublished in 2000. It was envisaged:
"The basic concept of an innovative advanced marine reactor MRX has been established by design study toward the goals of light-weightiness, compactness, and safety and reliability improvement with adoption of several new technologies. The MRX is the integral-type PWR aimed for use of ship propulsion. Adoption of a water-filled containment makes the reactor light-weighted and compact greatly. The total weight and volume of the reactor are 1600 tons and 1210 m3, which are equivalent to halves of the Mutsu, although the reactor power of MRX is three times greater."
With power output of MRX calculated as 30 MW - 100 MW, 100 MW may be well suited for a small SSN.]
Also see JAERI 1997 document (mainly Japanese language) on MRX
See JAEA's Business Plan activities (extending from 2005 to 2021). Basically no research on ship reactors was conducted by JAEA at all. Japan is not currently planning development of a nuclear submarine.
PETE's COMMENT
Factors that may cause Japan to research (or perhaps re-research) submarine reactors may be greater strategic threats from China, Russia and North Korea. Also competition with South Korea and US isolationism may encourage more Japanese research.
Set against Japanese submarine reactor development:
- Japan's strategic threats are close (just across the Sea of Japan) making the marginal utility low for
fast moving, long range, Japanese nuclear propelled submarines.
- Japan may place a higher priority on developing the necessary dual (civilian-military) use precursor
technology for nuclear weapons.
Russia already has highly developed submarine reactors but China apparently has not built fully satisfactory, efficient and quiet submarine reactors. North Korea probably cannot afford submarine reactors but North Korea is continually surprising.
While South Korea is not a strategic threat to Japan there is rivalry. South Korea studied (probably still studying) the possibility of submarine reactors under various names like KSS-N or KSS-III (nuclear) for decades.
If South Korea makes any progress in a "Nuclear Propulsion Ship" (see DSME "New Technology List") then this would catch Japan's attention. South Korea's - Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) might modify its licensed 100 MW "SMART" small PWR reactor which has the right power output, at least, for a nuclear sub.
Possible declining support from the US, in the shape of future Trump Presidency strategic isolationism, may encourage Japan to look at nuclear options, including submarine propulsion and nuclear weapons.
Pete and S