The Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue, between the US, India, Japan and Australia, is
steadily forming a vital networked defence structure in response to China's growing
military power in the Indo-Pacific.
(Map courtesy Wikipedia).
The US is still the vital cog in the Quad. This
is because the geographically, culturally and linguistically diverse nature of
the Quad, tends to weaken it against centrally commanded, Chinese forces.
To redress this weakness increased all services,
exercise, interactions of Quad members is vital, as well as common weapons,
procedures and broader use of English whenever possible. English is very widely spoken in India, the US and Australia. Knowledge of English in
Japan is improving.
In initial response to Pete’s perhaps extravagant claim that far in the future Australia and France may have a nuclear propelled/nuclear weapon submarine deal GhalibKabir made excellent comments on November 20, 2020. The Quad is a regionally useful arrangement at hand ie. very soon, rather than Australia-France Nuclear, which would be way down the track.
GhalibKabir comments:
“Not unless the Quadrilateral or whatever can walk the talk. Else, Australia will
not get a nuclear SSN fleet as a [French K15 reactor] LEU based fleet needing
refueling every 7-10 years is a costly thing to sink US$ 100-200 billion into.
Unless SIGINT collaboration, Undersea collaboration including bigger IUSS backed by UUV and UAV coordination materializes tangibly, the PLA will keep having an open field.
Most importantly, in case there are serious risks of flare-ups, unless there is serious signalling to China in terms of assured retaliation in terms of [Electronic Warfare?] EW response, [anti-satellite] ASAT retaliations on Chinese satellite constellations etc. China will brush this away like an elephant swatting away a fly.
To use underwater as an illustration, this is what it will take to make China take things seriously in the Indian Ocean and SCS
1. SIGINT/ELINT sats linked up across to P-8s, E-2Ds, RQ-4s/UAVs etc across from India to Australia
2. IUSS/SOSUS: These are to have links to AUV/UUVs and also to satellites above
3. Submarines: Along with UUVs, midget subs, AIP bearing SSKs, SSNs etc. need to be used in a 4 layer mesh. India, US, Australia, UK, France etc might need to collaborate here to manage the nearly 80 submarine plus innumerable UUV holding PLAN.
4. Surface vessels: Right from sharing bathymetry data etc, major surface vessels need to carry good Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) suites and be able to coordinate
5. Air support, missiles and munitions: Again SEAD/DEAD suite bearing fighters, long range munitions, BVRAAM missiles will need coordinated deployment to sustain parity or if not, a small 'first see, first shoot'chance against PLAN planes like the KJ-500 and KJ-600s and [Chinese stealth] J-20 and J-31 [aka FC-31]
This is the bare minimum needed... meaningless 'viagra for hermaphrodites' gestures like FONOPs won't cut any ice."
15 comments:
Hi Pete,
If Australia went nuclear sub, why would it go French, when it could go American?
Worlds best subs, adding say a dozen nuclear subs to the Five Eyes nations. Perhaps Australia could lease them. That'd give the US a lot of influence, but the US already has that anyway.
Andrew
Hi Andrew
Only the French (not the UK or US) have proven themselves willing to supply the non-nuclear aspects (eg. hull quieting and pumpjet) of their nuclear Barracuda design. This is an indicator of intention or not to supply the nuclear Barracuda to Australia.
The Barracuda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France) is smaller hence very likely cheaper (at 5,300 tonne) would have a cheaper reactor and have more exportable specifications than the tightly held "non-exportable F-22 like secrets" of the 8,500 tonne US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine and UK Astute-class (which uses the US reactor due to unique US-UK 60 year old Treaties).
Also the US wants to deploy all the subs it can build in the USN to keep up with the combined submarine strength of the sub arms of the Russian and Chinese navies.
Very little tradition in world history of Leasing key weapon systems which is why countries buy aircraft, ships and subs outright. Australia needs to have command, control, manning and total technical knowledge of its subs in time of Australian strategic emergency
rather than endure the risks/uncertainties of the US squadron of subs (that Australia pays leases for) sailing away to defend the US in times of US emergency.
An example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy_Submarine_Service#1945_to_present "Royal Navy's 4th Submarine Flotilla was based in Sydney from 1949 until 1969. The flotilla varied in size between two and three boats," But Australia had inadequate control, and the RN force was too small to cover Australia's east AND west coasts. So Australia bought 6 Oberon subs from UK company Vickers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon-class_submarine#Australian_service
Regards
Pete
Dear Andrew,
Australia has been clear about the benefits of nuclear propulsion with Julia Gillard's govt. clearly articulating the need for RAN SSNs.
The problem is 3 fold,
1. unofficially reborn Mahan Doctrine: Basically dictates US control of key assets and hence makes leases quite hard to envisage. The brits got knock after knock from the Polaris missile era (US wanted them under their overall command) and US effectively killed an Anglo-French nuclear cooperation. Right now, the UK has to be content with the Trident and playing a permanent second fiddle. Australia is no where near the UK... for starters
2. US Stance on HEU: Obama (and UNSC 1887) pretty much have shut the door on HEU. So, this is another non-starter as things stand today despite NPT and NSG rules treating nuclear propulsion differently. So forget HEU based reactors being shared...
3. General Tetchiness on T&T especially for Lease: Canada, UK have learnt the hard way that, forget source codes etc., the US does not part with lethally effective technology even as a blackbox off-on service. Ask us in India, we know the Indian P-8 comes without precision targeting ability, no 1 foot or 3 ft level accurate SAR and no UHR ISAR either.
The one thing that could work is a bottom-up approach to designing Australia's own reactor (the India way so to speak) using French 'show how' on the K-15 (possibly Australia could make a HALEU version to avoid refueling). Then use other elements of the French Barracuda and rely on Israel's rafael etc to get decent underwater suites (TKMS, DCNS will do nicely too) to design an 'interoperable' submarine (equivalent of a COMCASA type communications interchange enabled) that can communicate with Indian, US, UK and French subs...along with capable of being linked to P-8, IUSS, UUV and RQ-4, not to mention surface vessels...
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=115056&x=.
(like giving a Ferrari to a customer with 3 cylinders disabled)
A very good read:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26462940?socuuid=9fd9bcfb-8e80-422a-abc3-fb87c01294b2&socplat=email
Hi GhalibKabir
Thanks for your November 24, 2020 at 8:16 PM comments
and especially https://www.jstor.org/stable/26462940?socuuid=9fd9bcfb-8e80-422a-abc3-fb87c01294b2&socplat=email which is a real eye opener.
My son is visiting from inter-state so I can't fully reply till next week.
I also need to write next week on:
- S Korea flagging that it is edging closer to conventionally propelled ballistic missile sub capability and
- a possible US black program anti-Kanyon weapon and doctrine.
Meantime here is an intriguing paper:
By William Burr https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/william-burr
“U.S. Secret Assistance to the French Nuclear Program, 1969-1975: From "Fourth Country" to Strategic Partner” Dated May 26, 2011
at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/us-secret-assistance-to-the-french-nuclear-program-1969-1975-fourth-country-to-strategic
Regards
Pete
While I hope that if Australia does look to SSN’s, it won’t abandon the SSK (which I think at this time is the better option). Both have uses & neither can cover all bases. As to SSN, it is obvious the the French Baracuda is the only option. We are already planning to be building the basic hull. It uses civilian grade uranium in its standard French reactor (hence avoiding non proliferation treaty problems) & more importantly, France has already made reference to the possibility. Due to our lack of nuclear engineers & civil nuclear power industry, perhaps 9 SSK & 3 SSN. Leasing is a non option as you loose control. As to buying from US or UK. It’s actually illegal under treaties that those involved have signed up to due to the use of weapons grade fuel - even though we are more than capable of making weapons grade nuclear fuel or weapons & have been for some time. Australia could use the French reactor with refuelling under current rules & could even pay the French to do the refuelling. The K15 reactor is 10 years between refuelling. Actually having two identical looking subs may be a strategic advantage that no other country has managed to pull off.
@Pete
The US also has no excess capacity to export SSNs. They are already maxed out with the upcoming build of two Virginia SSN +1 Columbia SSBN, and recent 'moves' to build 3 Virginia subs a year wasn't met with glad tidings. Then factor in the massive maintenance backlog - the USS Boise waited five years to begin dry-docking, and will be out of service for eight years in total.
https://news.usni.org/2020/10/28/general-dynamics-not-yet-planning-to-build-3-virginia-subs-each-year
Hi GhalibKabir
@ November 24, 2020 at 8:16 PM
1. Talking 15 years time - once South Korea has nuclear weapons to counter NK’s nuclear weapons and who knows whether Japan will nuclearise:
Given France’s apparent 20 year inability to improve the K-15 anywhere near the whole-of-life core for US and (US sold to) UK reactors for submarine...
I don’t think Australia would have the money or technical base (by itself) to improve on the 10 year K-15.
BUT if Australia tries to build its own submarine reactor, builds its own nuclear weapons and, in so doing is on the point of WEAK ALLY BANKRUPTCY itself then the US might conclude a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E2%80%93UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement like Nuclear Agreement with Australia .
The 1958 UK Agreement was versus USSR.
The 2035 AUS Agreement could be versus CHINA, RUSSIA and NK.
2. Another avenue (which I think Australia is quietly pursuing) might be Australia throwing its defence budget more squarely at France for a:
joint Australia-France Reactor Improvement Program and
France helps Aus with nuclear weapons, following the French-Israeli weapons tradition.
These processes I call: “Lose Your Australian Ally to China or Help Australia”
Britain faced the same quandary in the 1950s vis a vis USSR
I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom#An_independent_deterrent
With the US finally providing the UK and to some extent France with the desired help.
Pete
Hi Anonymous
@November 26, 2020 at 10:39 PM
Australia is due to do a strategic review of its Future (Attack class) SSK program by 2029 which may mean one or some SSKs or even going all out for Barracuda SSNs - see https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines "Rolling acquisition program that will allow a technology review, sometime in the late 2020s to consider developments and other specifications that might be needed"
As I think in the next 6 years South Korea will announce or strongly hint that its KSS-III SSKs will have nuclear tipped missiles the pressure on Australia to have a the present K-15 less "proliferation" level LEU reactor will become less.
Maybe 6 SSK and 6 SSNs by 2044 might be a reasonable Australian-French plan. The reactor may be higher in U 235 than the K-15 but far short of the US/UK's SELF-LEGALISED 95+% U235 reactor.
Pete
Hi Shawn C
@November 29, 2020 at 11:56 PM
Because, as you illustrate, the US is/will be building SSNs and SSBNs up to its industrial capacity for its own needs (versus Trump's friend Russia's (not only China's) combined nuclear fleets) it is true the US "has no excess capacity to export SSNs."
Also, the US is nationally reluctant to have even allies do the whole build (not just assembly) of stealth aircraft let alone the world's highest tech nuclear submarines.
Hence it makes all the more sense Australia relies on France to oversee the building of (say) 5 of 6 (improved reactor) Barracuda SSNs by 2044. With Australia helping France fund the 18 year-life? 60% U235? reactor improvement.
Together with the US's production/overhaul limitations the US naval budget is overstretched
trying to achieve Trump's foolhardy gaol of a 350 ship navy https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/25/trump-called-for-a-350-ship-fleet-but-his-budget-would-fall-short-of-even-obama-era-goals/
Such "pick a number" strategy forgets the larger size and higher quality of most US surface vessels compared to Russia's and to a lesser extent China's.
Thanks for https://news.usni.org/2020/10/28/general-dynamics-not-yet-planning-to-build-3-virginia-subs-each-year Trump's "scorched-earth?" sacking of the very able Defense Secretary Esper hasn't helped the USN's submarine build expansion plans, any.
Regards
Pete
@your November 30, 2020 at 5:25 PM comment
An AU-FR nuclear marine reactor deal is doable especially if the Australian public can stop being skittish about HALEU or MEU of around 20%. Bob Hawke's government did great self harm by selling off the SILEX enrichment process rights me thinks...spectacularly 'castrating' the AAEC in the process in one fell swoop.
As for weapons, I cannot see of a convincing situation where the French think sharing weapons design with Oz would be prudent...Frankly given Australian technology base, a series of determined governments could make a bomb work as cold testing and modeling are advanced enough as of 2020. Then who will give MRBMs or SCALP like SLCMs for nuclear tipping the produced bombs is another question...also..no ICBMs = useless n-weapons.
If nuclear weapons and submarine fleets are a national necessity, then Australia goes the India way pretty much...making missile programs in parallel with a complete closed cycle nuclear program from Uranium enrichment centrifuge lines to Pu reprocessing plants.
The French can act as critical boosters at major way points, it will be an Aussie effort that gets it any 'credible deterrence' though..(by 2060 if they start now in earnest)..also expect the US to oppose it and of course the chinese will be about as comfortable as a man in buff sitting on a thorny cactus. this will need fortitude over decades.
Pete
Trying to increase the refuelling timespan of the K15 is likely approaching its limit. Remember most such reactors are refuelled at 7 years. The K15 is 10 years. You boost the U235 content then you move away from commercial grade fuel. A Thorium based reactor though would be a game changer.
France has already made reference to SSN’s when promoting their Baracuda SSK version during the original competition. It is a major power with proven nuclear credentials & a long standing ally. While Australia is quite capable of building a nuclear weapon, a submarine reactor is something else. You can’t equate a submarine reactor to Lucas Heights. If France has been struggling with the K15 submarine version (& it has), they have had more experience & more qualified people working on it than we can hope to put forward. That’s not to say we cannot contribute, we have some very bright people. Australia has been involved with thing nuclear for some time. It’s 75 years since 1945, so the ability to make something go bang is nothing out of the ordinary for a nation like Australia. Submarine reactors in K15 class though may take a while.
Hi GhalibKabir
@ your December 1, 2020 at 5:39 PM
1.Trendy upper middle class members of the Australian Labor Party’s left wing and our Greens have always put up barriers to any civilian or military uses of nuclear energy. Post AAEC, even ANSTO avoids having the N (for "nuclear") word up front on its website. See https://www.ansto.gov.au/ it looks more like a third world aid outfit!
But both sides of politics are pro-build-submarines-in-Adelaide (for South Australian economic development and subsequent votes). In the French context this means the Australian Federal Government pays higher than market costs to Adelaide domestic industry AND to France’s military-industrial complex (eg. Naval Group).
France definitely needs to upgrade its K15 submarine reactor - with Australian cross subsidised money coming in handy.
So yes Australian money to help France into HALEU or MEU can happen even without Australia’s overt green light.
2. As France indeed finds it difficult to hand over modern-Jericho ballistic missile technology these days, it is lucky Australia is developing its own. Boosting LEO sats https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/12/future-australian-ballistic-missile.html need only be the beginning.
Australia bought the Collins combat system with the capability to launch Tomahawk SLCMs but clearly a Conventional explosive payload is too weak as a deterrent or to justify a land attack SLCM in a medium level war.
Pu may quietly justify a larger experimental reactor at Lucas Heights.
AND/OR
Probably easier an Australian reinvention of SILEX after South Korea's nuclear deterrent needs (vs NK) more overtly get going. Thus justifying heightened proliferation policies of several other countries in the Indo-pacific.
As France does not purport to be a nuclear weapon guarantor of the Indo-Pacific (while the US has privileged its Western Monopoly position in that region) Australia, South Korea and probably Japan shouldn’t waste their time waiting for Washington's blessing in about 2070.
Meanwhile the UK is of no nuclear help to Australia as the UK is hamstrung by treaty and no-technology-transfer agreement with the US.
France’s help to Israel track record also suggests we should rely on France.
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous
@your December 1, 2020 at 9:30 PM
Please note my response to GhalibKabir directly above.
Submarine reactor Powers learned early on that Alternatives to U235 PWRs (by they Thorium isotope powered or liquid metal cooled reactors) where non-viable.
Also Australia doesn’t have the money to invent a radically new unconventional reactor type for submarine.
France may well need to move away from the civilian grade U235 underpinnings of the K15 if France is to reach the 35 year core life level of allies and soon Enemies.
Having to refuel every 7-10 years, in France, would be unviable for potential Australian and Canadian customers in future years.
France has spent so much time modifying the K15 from what it was in the early 1980s (for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triomphant-class_submarine SSBN) that I think the Latest K15s could be considered a New Reactor.
I think the term “K15” is mainly retained to always look like a constant current French defence budget item rather than scaring the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_the_Economy_and_Finance_(France) by saying it is a whole New reactor type to Newly justify.
In Reagan's time a similar New Labelling mistake happened regarding the US "MX" ICBM when the US DoD should merely have said it was the latest in the "Minuteman" series.
Definitely Australia would need to buy a submarine reactor rather than home build. Even the better funded UK relied/relies on US submarine reactor designs.
A weapon invention (one tonne warhead (of decades old design) on an Australian SLBM) would indeed be easier than Australia reinventing a submarine reactor from scratch. In almost all cases Nuclear Weapons Power have found it easier (and/or more prudent) to invent a thermonuclear weapon Before they invent a submarine reactor.
Regards
Pete
Good evening, Pete!
While we don't want to open up to other countries, Japan is also making a steady technological effort.
Conceptual design of small integrated reactor for multipurpose use completed
Moving to the study stage of social implementation based on market needs
2020-12-03
https://www.mhi.com/jp/news/201203.html
With technological backing, it can be used rapidly for military purposes in the event of a national emergency.
Thanks Anonymous
For presenting https://www.mhi.com/jp/news/201203.html which mentions "The development of small reactors began with the development of the power reactor for the nuclear ship "Mutsu," which was launched in 1969."
Japan's nuclear powered civilian ship "Mutsu's" reactor went critical in the 1970s with 36 MW thermal power - see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/06/japanese-nuclear-propulsion-1-mutsu.html
Was the Mutsu reactor MHI developed?
Your https://www.mhi.com/jp/news/201203.html of December 3, 2020, once translated into English, is titled "Completed the conceptual design of an integrated small nuclear reactor that realizes multipurpose use To the stage of studying social implementation based on market needs" Describing reactor outputs for:
- small-scale grids in the 300 MW class
- and mobile ship-mounted reactors of 30 MW for "remote islands, emergency power sources for disasters"
- "It can also be used for multiple purposes such as power and heat source utilization. Based on the multifaceted research and analysis of market needs for these wide-ranging purposes, we will explore the path to so-called "social implementation" in which this result will contribute to solving actual problems in society in the future."
Japan would have noticed South Korea is discussing giving its future KSS-III Batch III 4,500 ton ballistic missile submarines a reactor. North Korea is most definitly building nuclear armed diesel-electric submarines.
As you say "With technological backing, [the MHI small reactors] can be used rapidly for military purposes in the event of a national emergency."
Hopefully France is not Australia's only conventional/nuclear propulsion option. If Australia's French submarine program fails Japan can develop a diesel-powered submarine for Australia from the late 2020s. I read https://www.mhi.com/jp/news/201203.html as a possibility of a nuclear propelled Japanese submarine in the 2030s?
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment