learnt from overseas media we are not letting Aussie nuclear sub in

Forums › Off topic › learnt from overseas media we are not letting Aussie nuclear sub in

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779986 17-Sep-2021 17:08

Fred99:
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/breaking-news/china-panics-after-learning-theyve-only-got-25-years-until-australia-gets-8-new-submarines/

I prefer this explanation of Australia's defence policy wrt China:

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779989 17-Sep-2021 17:12

cruxis:
Is this not a backdoor to the nuclear weapons treaty ? Becuase the fuel used in American / UK Naval reactors is weapons grade. Not the usual low grade in other reactors. So if Aussie use American/UK reactors therefore they would posses weapons grade material.

They could then breakout at anytime to produce a bomb within weeks from there. Maybe that is the message they trying to send to China?

Um, no. I don't want to type a small book explaining it and there's so much I don't even know where to start, but no.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780010 17-Sep-2021 17:26

sir1963:
So, apart from any weapons on board, there is still the reactor which will STILL eventually corrode through and leak.

Pretty unlikely. The containment on those is substantial, and in particular the primary containment is typically several tons of 316 stainless, a.k.a. marine-grade stainless. Surrounding that will be material with a high neutron capture cross section, usually high-hydrogen plastics like polyethylene which are great for both neutron capture and scattering, but also good at keeping contaminants out. The fuel in the core itself in newer subs will be something like sintered uranium dioxide which is enriched so the U235 content is higher, the term "weapons-grade" is a bit misleading since it really just means more than the natural 0.7%, and in any case for weapons you need Pu239 not U235 unless you're using it as a fusion igniter in the second stage of a two-stage weapon.

Uh, yeah, point is that there's not really much chance of problems from the reactor.

Handle9

11390 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780013 17-Sep-2021 17:36

Dingbatt:

I thought the NZ government would support the RAN reducing their carbon footprint.

It's an abiding shame that our population can't read our legislation.

elpenguino

3421 posts

Uber Geek

#2780018 17-Sep-2021 17:54

neb: The containment on those is substantial, and in particular the primary containment is typically several tons of 316 stainless, a.k.a. marine-grade stainless. Surrounding that will be material with a high neutron capture cross section, usually high-hydrogen plastics like polyethylene which are great for both neutron capture and scattering, but also good at keeping contaminants out. The fuel in the core itself in newer subs will be something like sintered uranium dioxide which is enriched so the U235 content is higher, the term "weapons-grade" is a bit misleading since it really just means more than the natural 0.7%, and in any case for weapons you need Pu239 not U235 unless you're using it as a fusion igniter in the second stage of a two-stage weapon. Uh, yeah, point is that there's not really much chance of problems from the reactor.

That's a lot of detail. Methinks neb is on a watchlist of some kind :-)

I hope Oz will make a better fist of their nuke subs than they have with their Collins class DE subs. At times they've been reduced to having one out of 6 operational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Operational_history

In any case, if they do go ahead, they'll be sinking something, and that's a metric shedton of cash into the project. Cash that could be spend on other things.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780033 17-Sep-2021 19:35

neb: The fuel in the core itself in newer subs will be something like sintered uranium dioxide which is enriched so the U235 content is higher, the term "weapons-grade" is a bit misleading since it really just means more than the natural 0.7%,

Higher than that, much higher. USA uses Highly Enriched Uranium fuel 97% in its naval and submarine nuclear reactors. As does India, Russia, UK.

China does not. France does not. Both use Low Enriched Uranium fuel in naval reactors. Under 20%.

HEU increases proliferation risks and it's undesirable to make any more of it. International cooperation including the USA has slowly reduced stocks. However, for some reason the Republican Party really likes HEU in submarines and naval reactors and opposes the use of LEU for that purpose.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780042 17-Sep-2021 20:35

Handle9:

Dingbatt:

I thought the NZ government would support the RAN reducing their carbon footprint.

It's an abiding shame that our population can't read our legislation.

Sorry can’t follow what you’re getting at here. Except maybe I should have put a (/s) after my comment.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Handle9

11390 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2780043 17-Sep-2021 20:37

Dingbatt:
Handle9:

It's an abiding shame that our population can't read our legislation.

Sorry can’t follow what you’re getting at here. Except maybe I should have put a (/s) after my comment.

You were trolling. Silly posts get silly responses.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2780049 17-Sep-2021 21:08

Handle9:

You were trolling. Silly posts get silly responses.

Thank you. Now I understand.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

KiwiSurfer

1450 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2780095 18-Sep-2021 07:40

wellygary:

3/ in 2016 Oz signed a deal with France for some subs, the first wasn’t due to be finish being built in OZ till early 2030...

Australia has cancelled their deal with France. So looks like they're going 'All In' on the Nuclear sub project.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2780111 18-Sep-2021 09:10

KiwiSurfer:

Australia has cancelled their deal with France. So looks like they're going 'All In' on the Nuclear sub project.

So they cancelled a deal out of the blue and went all in rah rah with America with a deal that won't be delivered for about a dozen Aus Prime Ministers, and two dozen budget deficits length of time.

Newspaper opinion writers suggest it's a "huge snub" for NZ and because of our anti-nuke policies. Canada was overlooked because it's so frequently left off maps of the world.

The cunning plan is for Australia to be the only nation to have nuclear subs without nukes - the main purpose of nuclear subs these days is as a tactical nuclear weapon SLBM delivery system to evade missile defence systems - because they can sneak up close to the target. Other military reasons for superpowers having fleets of subs have been redundant for decades.

Welcome to season 2 of the Cold War Arms Race. China can churn out Nuclear Subs at a tiny fraction of the cost to their economy, and far more quickly.

I'm glad to be in NZ with NZ's anti-nuke stance.

PaulL

91 posts

Master Geek

#2780118 18-Sep-2021 09:44

Fred99:

KiwiSurfer:

Australia has cancelled their deal with France. So looks like they're going 'All In' on the Nuclear sub project.

So they cancelled a deal out of the blue and went all in rah rah with America with a deal that won't be delivered for about a dozen Aus Prime Ministers, and two dozen budget deficits length of time.

Newspaper opinion writers suggest it's a "huge snub" for NZ and because of our anti-nuke policies. Canada was overlooked because it's so frequently left off maps of the world.

The cunning plan is for Australia to be the only nation to have nuclear subs without nukes - the main purpose of nuclear subs these days is as a tactical nuclear weapon SLBM delivery system to evade missile defence systems - because they can sneak up close to the target. Other military reasons for superpowers having fleets of subs have been redundant for decades.

Welcome to season 2 of the Cold War Arms Race. China can churn out Nuclear Subs at a tiny fraction of the cost to their economy, and far more quickly.

I'm glad to be in NZ with NZ's anti-nuke stance.

The Australian problem was that the Collins class have always been a dog, and they wanted submarines with the range to be a sensible deterrent to the Chinese in the South China Sea. Conventionally powered subs really aren't - they have to spend a fair amount of time on the surface/at snorkel depth, so they're pretty easy to find. The French ones are big, but not really big enough, so they don't have the range to loiter in the South China Sea.

Something like 60% of world trade goes through the South China Sea, and China is consistently breaking international law in that area. Australia believes, as a largish power in the region, it's partly their responsibility to share the load of deterring China from ongoing encroachment. The French submarines weren't capable of doing that, everyone knew that, but the previous governments were unwilling to buy submarines that actually would deter the Chinese due to the likely noise about them being nuclear powered.

With the general change in tone towards the Chinese in recent years, the Australian government has decided it might be politically palatable to buy submarines that actually do what they're intended for. It sounds to me like the deal here will be to just buy off the shelf US nuclear submarines, minimal modifications, and stop pretending you can build them in Australia. In which case there's absolutely no reason they need to be 25 years away.

You can sensibly disagree over whether a policy of attempting to retain the South China Sea as international waters is a good one. But if that's the policy you want, and you want Australia to carry its weight in doing that, then this is a very sensible decision.

As for NZ banning nuclear powered vessels from our ports, yes it's the law, yes laws can be changed. Since nuclear power is one of the better ways to reduce carbon emissions, and NZ believes that global warming is the major crisis of our times, seems like we could adjust our aversion to nuclear power. Not every country has the luxury of the level of hydroelectric power NZ has, and in fact even NZ no longer has that luxury - note our recent massive increase in coal imports.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2780154 18-Sep-2021 12:07

PaulL:

Something like 60% of world trade goes through the South China Sea

As far as Australia goes, Aussies iron ore and coal exports and much of their imports go through there.

And almost all of it to and from China.

The argument that China's actions in the area are about controlling shipping routes doesn't stack up.

As the world's dominant trading nation, they will never do what's being suggested.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2780159 18-Sep-2021 12:20

PaulL:

Since nuclear power is one of the better ways to reduce carbon emissions, and NZ believes that global warming is the major crisis of our times, seems like we could adjust our aversion to nuclear power. Not every country has the luxury of the level of hydroelectric power NZ has, and in fact even NZ no longer has that luxury - note our recent massive increase in coal imports.

Hasn't this been discussed in multiple other threads on GZ? Consensus always seems to have been that it's a great big nope.

Even Australia - probably the best place in the world to dump reactor waste - can't find a politically palatable solution for dealing with the small amount of waste produced at Lucas Heights.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/appendices/radioactive-waste-repository-store-for-australia.aspx

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2780219 18-Sep-2021 13:08

Fred99:

The cunning plan is for Australia to be the only nation to have nuclear subs without nukes - the main purpose of nuclear subs these days is as a tactical nuclear weapon SLBM delivery system to evade missile defence systems - because they can sneak up close to the target. Other military reasons for superpowers having fleets of subs have been redundant for decades.

There are two types of nuclear powered submarine. The first you mentioned as firing SLBM but these are not tactical weapons and they don't need to get close to their targets. They are a strategic deterrent employed by countries such as the UK and US, France, Russia and China. the reason submarines are employed is that they can hide and avoid detection so the threat they are up against can't readily locate and counter that nations nuclear deterrent.

The second class are the nuclear powered hunter killers generally armed with conventional torpedoes or medium range tactical weapons such as Tomahawk, again a conventional payload. In effect they are just bigger versions of the vast proliferation of conventionally powered submarines around the world. They offer advantages such as faster underwater speed, not fuel limited and endurance well beyond the conventional fleets. This makes them eminently suitable for roles such as protecting the previously mentioned strategic deterrent, acting as a forward ASW screen and act as the first line of defence (in conjunction with MPA such as the P-8A) for battle groups or amphibious forces. They also have independent roles where they can use the water to position for support to land forces with cruise missiles. They can also be used to counter other nation' submarine based nuclear deterrent.

If you look here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country

You can see there are submarines in every corner of the globe.

For the Australian's having nuclear powered hunter killers is an extremely sensible decision.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7