4 ms·
I'm still amazed by this decision that dates from last year, and wondering why not re-use the full Saphir: if part of it is re-usable like this, why not use the
by gregoriol 6y ago
I'm still amazed by this decision that dates from last year, and wondering why not re-use the full Saphir: if part of it is re-usable like this, why not use the full of it instead of cutting it and trying a challenging engineering repair of the damaged one.
- gostsamo 6y agoMaybe because the back of the decommissioned submarine was not fit to work as well.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bserge 6y agoThat might be harder/more expensive if it was decommissioned because of reactor/propulsion/other critical systems in the back.
- wazoox 6y agoI'm pretty sure it's because of the nuclear reactor which is in the rear half. The Perle's reactor has still some years to go, and it's much simpler and safer to simply weld the half containing the reactor, instead of trying to pry it open and move a live nuclear reactor from a boat to the other one.
- astura 6y agoRefueling a nuclear reactor on a submarine is very, very expensive. The Saphir obviously would need refueling to be put back in service, costing lots of money. If the Perle was recently refueled and the back part is where the reactor is, then it would almost certainly be cheaper to repair the Perle instead of refuel the reactor on the Saphir.
- jabl 6y agoFrench submarines are a bit different from, say, US or British ones. They are refueled at 10 year intervals, and designed accordingly (e.g. there's a big hatch above the reactor which can be removed for the refueling), and they use LEU fuel produced in an enrichment facility that also produces civilian nuclear fuel.