February 25, 2021

Election Winning Sub Deals: Japan Delay or French SSN?

Following this article and in response to my friend GhalibKabir’s interesting comment I comment:

Over concerns about the level of Australian content in French Naval Group's Attack-class submarine project the Morrison Government's negotiations with Naval Group Chairman and CEO, Pierre Eric Pommellet, are largely window dressing. Determining "what is Australian content" is more a public relations art than a logistical science.

Back in 2016, and to win that year's Federal Election, the Turnbull Government prematurely chose a future submarine builder (Naval Group) as a sweetener to win one or two critical South Australia seats. Those seats actually won Turnbull the election and South Australians continue to rejoice in having the $10 Billions new submarine construction contract in their state. The higher the cost of a defence project the more political it is - vested interests and all.

But the Turnbull Government's choice happened so quickly that the contractual basis was largely open ended in Naval Group's favour. Now all Australian taxpayers are living with that reality today in terms of an open ended, rising, project price. 

In late February 2021 it is unlikely the Morrison Government would take the risky domestic political step of ending the Naval Group contract. But there is hope. South Australia remains hypersensitive to threats to its main manufacturing money earner, the submarine contract. 

Morrison is now acutely vulnerable because in mid February 2021 Federal Member of Parliament Craig Kelly put serious pressure on the Coalition after leaving for the crossbench. This means Morrison’s Coalition government only needs to lose one seat in South Australia (in a possible October 2021 Election) for Federal Labor to win Government.

Also Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is already under major political pressure over the alleged rape of a female staff member.

Regarding 
Japan or Saab as possible submarine building alternatives to Naval Group:

Japan would probably offer the cheapest build in South Australia but we would still be talking actual commissioning in the 2030s. 

In 2016, China overall was in Australia's good books, as Australia's major trade partner, with the strategic threat China posed far secondary.  Australian academics and policymakers were concerned Japan expected too much of a major submarine deal adding up to a closer strategic alliance between Japan and Australia. China being the major threat to Japanese and Australian allies.

Now in 2021 China is recognised as the major regional threat. If a submarine deal strengthened the (Australia, Japan, US, India) Quad that would be a good thing. The new Biden administration can do much to persuade Japan to leave its no-big-foreign-arms-deal-experience comfort zone and again think seriously of helping Australia build a variant of the latest Japanese sub (now the Taigei class).

Meanwhile Sweden's Saab-Kockums has yet to prove (after a 20 year hiatus) that it can turn out new subs efficiently. Saab's A26 Blekinge class has still not been launched even for Saab’s own Swedish Navy. The last new subs Kockums built were the unpopular Collins (HMAS Rankin launched 2001). Also there is the RAN's, Australian politicians' and the publics’ bad memory of numerous Kockums technical, cost and attitudinal problems in the building of the Collins (eg. the defective diesels are still in the Collins and still limit its performance). Furthermore Sweden was not even in the future submarine 2016 shortlist (which consisted of France, Germany and Japan).

Morrison could talk to Japan (which is hurting financially because of the de facto cancelled Olympics) in order to reignite sub-builders KHI and MHI enthusiasm for an Australian sub deal. Although it would take about 7 years for Japan to design an especially large, long enough range,  Australian submarine. Prime Minister Morrison would need to be brave to indicate to South Australia that Japan could be a viable alternative to Naval Group. 
_____________

Naval Group's Barracuda/Suffren class SSN is a better answer:

This Naval Group submarine design is ready now - no 10 year development delay. A nuclear propelled attack sub (SSN) most directly answers Australia's long distance/fast transit mission needs and is truely "regionally superior".

Many nuclear proliferation concerns can be countered that unlike US and UK SSNs, that use weapons grade HEU in their submarine reactors, the French SSN uses more legally and politically permissable LEU.  

South Australian voters can be assured that Australia is still sticking with a Naval Group submarine build in South Australia - main difference is that its a nuclear propelled submarine.

See influential conservative Australian commentator Peta Credlin explaining the SSN case. Although in contrast to her UK or US SSN suggestion I'd argue the French SSN is a more viable buy. This is in many respects, including the French SSN is smaller implicitly cheaper, needs a far smaller crew, has a low proliferation reactor, and France has a better record selling sensitive nuclear gear than the US or UK.

It would be better not to combine hence conflate the highly specialised French SSN reactors issue (these would be refueled in France) with the perpetually too-hard-basket issue of land based nuclear energy reactors in Australia.

Repeated public enquiries in Australia have indicated the public are against land energy reactors - making land reactors a scorching hot political potato that may take decades to resolve in favour of.

25 comments:

Don said...

Pete the Japanese option is unlikely ever to find wings.
They quit the Aussie car industry in disgust having been driven out by the rigid stupidity of the unions over labour costs.
I don't see them making even plastic boomerangs in Australia unless they have complete ironclad control over all processes and rightly so.
Cheers.

Pete said...

Hi Don

Australian local submarine building labour costs are above average anyway. Defence manufacturing costs are always high in a customer country.

The high costs of Australian submarine building labour can (and are) being Cross Subsidised by the Australian Federal Government. So labour costs are no net loss for any main (foreign) countractor presiding over Australia's future submarine build.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Note that I've changed the wording and orientation of this article to:

"Election Winning Sub Deals: Japan Delay or French SSN?"

A French SSN (which only uses low enriched uranium) if argued well, would be good news for Naval Group and the South Australian economy.

And good news for Australia and our Navy as the French SSN (Barracuda/Suffren class) design is ready NOW (not in 10-15 years time). No years of risky tinkering.

The French Navy has already commissioned the very same nuclear submarine design that Australia could buy.

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

Hi Pete@Feb 26, 2021, 12:11:00 PM

For one, (I think I have said it many times earlier), unless Australia's public can stand behind the government via a vis creation of a fully nuclear supply chain as strategic necessity, Australia will not be able to create let alone manage an SSN fleet in a stable way in the long run.

I do understand the movement towards downblending HEU into LEU in currently HEU navies such as the US and the UK, however, even with such mitigated proliferation concerns, Australian public opinion (or atleast, the perception given to the outside world) is still too skittish regarding nuclear as a fuel source.

Bill Gates is essentially right in saying that nuclear needs to be an essential part of the electricity generation mix as a 'base load'. Only a large scale program that creates nuclear power plants can justify creation of ENR and fuel fabrication facilities 'priced reasonable enough' to sustain a fleet 8-12 SSNs via 'civilian cross-subsidizing'.

(It is not cheap, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/55032-Submarine_Maintenance_Costs.pdf
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/cost-defence-2020-2021-part-2-aspi-defence-budget-brief)

That USD 30 billion Ozzie defence budget will need to go up substantially for starters...

PS: Even well meaning environmental activists did a great disservice through bias, illiteracy and dogmatism on nuclear power..., not to mention appallingly illiterate airheaded comments at times even by the likes of thunberg...

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir
@Feb 26, 2021, 2:32:00 PM

You’re right, at the moment. Australia has a solid anti-nuclear tradition but the China Threat (if argued well) can change that regarding Aus submarine reactors.

If an Aus SSN suggestion is advertised as merely the adoption of (French refueled) reactors on submarines the SSN suggestion may have legs.

The Aus Federal Government and South Australian Government would be well advised NOT to Conflate SSN reactors with the too-hard-basket issue of much larger on-land nuclear energy reactors.

Another SSN attraction is we’d only need 6 (like France has) because SSNs are twice as capable (and 3 times faster to the action) than the current plan of 12 SSKs.

Australia’s GDP (of which Defence Budget is a part) now compares well with France’s GDP in the 1970s when France was building its Rubis class SSNs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubis-class_submarine .

Australia’s 2020s strategic need to face China is also an argument that submarine reactors are essential.

Also unlike the Not Yet Designed Aus Attack class (only commissioned from the 2030s)

an Already Designed Australian Barracuda SSN class could begin commissioning in the 2020s.

Regards

Pete

Lee McCurtayne said...

You mentioned the “ well explained “ case for nuclear powered submarines, this is what is needed more than anything else. The Australian public does not understand the “Vast” distances and times that demands nuclear propulsion. Australians are relatively ignorant of what is needed because the subject is never presented to the public as an open, honest discussion. Instead we are treated like children waiting for a “Big Person” to make the decision. Australians are not stupid, they just need to be engaged on their future needs. Australians have one of the greatest technology uptake on the planet, what really makes us anti- anything is lack of prudent, relevant data.

Anonymous said...

Hello, first time to comment on your blog.

I see quite reasonable for Oz to go for French SSNs. If you look to Canada as well,... they also face similar problems (public opinion against them, but need of nuclear to deploy in remote scenarios).
Would be great to reach a tripartite deal (Fra, Aus, Can) where Fra would assist with design & technology, boats could be built in Aus. and Can could provide sonar systems and nuke (LEU) refuelling (they do have nuclear plants in-shore).

Pete said...

Hi Lee McCurtayne
@Feb 27, 2021, 2:54:00 PM

The main problem with how officials and ex-RAN (usually engineer branch) officers explain the need for reactors for Australian submarines is that they unhelpfully state:

1. Australia needs a massive land based nuclear industrial system to maintain those sub reactors.

2. In doing so they intentionally or unintentionally Side-Track the issue to land based nuclear Power Electricity reactors, and

3, Side-track to isolated nuclear waste dumps siting and construction (which is inevitably on/near Aboriginal Land).

Submarine reactors are a limited highly specialised issue. Much reactor support and nuclear training can occur at Lucas Heights NSW where Australia has maintained nuclear reactors and trained nuclear engineers/technicians and scientists since 1958 https://dl.nfsa.gov.au/module/56/

The highly specialised process of refeuling can only be done in France (if we buy Barracuda SSNs which have a K15 reactor).

Much of the gigantism of sub reactor support predictions can be attributed to official/ex-RAN being engineers with visions of Land Based Power Reactor careers.

Re a disposal of Australian SSN reactors issue. This would occur Lauch date (eg. 2027) + 35 years = 2062. Again Lucas Heights stores LEU-HEU radioactive objects/chemicals and has done so for 60 years.

So I think its less public ignorance and more grandiose side tracking by officials/ex-RAN either with unhelpful agendas and/or poor PR skills.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous on Australian/Canadian SSNs issue
@Feb 28, 2021, 8:40:00 AM

Welcome to my blog :)

Yes Canada's subs need to travel vast coastline oceanic distances. They need ideally to operate (no snorting or surfacing) under ice against Russian SSN and SSBN threats. Also Canadian subs actually do missions far south to monitor Latin American drug smuggling.

Unfortunately the US may occasionally apply a northerly no European power (except UK) in the Western Hemisphere neo-Monroe doctine. This may have headed off any 1960 option of future French Rubis class SSNs

Canada in the early 60s had settled for just 3 Oberon SSKs commissioned 1965-68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon-class_submarine#Canadian_acquisition

In 1987 Canada revisited the SSN question. But Canada was wildly ambitious in talking up to 12 SSNs when even France settled for just 6 Rubis class SSNs for the French Navy. After only 3 Oberons buying 12 Canadian SSNs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine would have been a major cost (and for the US balance of power) escalation.

Now in 2021 if Australian and Canadian money becomes attractive enough (and US negative pressure on France not too great) then France might be persuaded to:

- work in phase with Collins sub decommissioning about 2028 on by making a French built French Barracuda class SSN avaible in 2028. The 5-7 French Barracuda class SSNs built in Australia

and

- meet Victoria class decommissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine#Life_extension_and_potential_replacement occuring about 2032 with First a French built French Barracuda class SSN to Canada around 2033 then 5-7 Canadian built French Barracuda class SSNs.

Yes refueling from Canadian reactors might be easier than Aus SSNs going all the way to France. It would also help cross-subsidise "economies of scale" Canada's SSN costs.

Aus would very likely stick with the US Combat System (weapons, sensors (eg. sonars), some workstations/databases) as that is a major benefit-tie in with the US alliance. US also being Canada's major strategic ally.

Cheers

Pete

Anonymus said...

Hi Pete

Thank you very much from Spain for this great blog, in which we can share our hobby and concerns

The SSN Barracuda class option from France seems to be very interesting from the point of view of Australian operational needs, however the following question arises:

Wouldn't it mean a situation of absolute dependence on a third country, in this case France?

In this sense, Australia would be willing to bear this cost from the point of view of its very long-term strategic vision.

King regards

antpla

Gessler said...

Pete, how do you view the possibility of a Labour government in Australia playing spoilsport for Quad (if they come to power at some point in the future) in a bid to appease China? And how would they sabotage any possible SSN program by asserting that Oz doesn't need them and by conflating such viewpoints that a nuclear accident could render unlivable the entire section of Oz coastline where these SSNs are homeported?

(the truth behind such allegations be damned, most of the anti-nuclear lobbies don't give a sliver of thought to making an honest assessment of the dangers and risk-reward involved).

And any such assertions are likely to be able to hitch their wagon to a well-funded and well-oiled global anti-nuclear ecosystem.

GhalibKabir said...

Hi Pete@Feb 27, 2021, 9:11:00 AM

We have discussed this earlier too, IIRC, the point of having an SSN fleet is lost if every 7-10 years 2-3 subs have to sail all the way back to DCNS Cherbourg yard to refuel. It is a very costly sub-economical endeavour in the long run...coupled with climate change hitting Australia hard, nuclear as a base load should be a no brainer by now....not to mention, cross-synergies with the naval propulsion program..

6 SSNs with 2 on patrol 2 in refuel and 2 on maintenance is not adequate imho. Australia's shores are very big and coupled with projection needs from Cocos to Micronesia, 10-12 SSNs are needed and ideally with refueling done at Adelaide and/or Fremantle...else with LEU fuel, we are looking at a perennially sub-optimal fleet...

Frankly the pace at which the PLAN is expanding, Australia might need many more LRMPAs, ASW Choppers not to mention armed and unarmed UUVs, armed and unarmed tethered sensor points on the ocean floor...Japan is a good benchmark, 100 plus P-3Cs, P-1 Kawasakis, 110 plus MH-60Rs not to mention a 20 submarine fleet with 26 destroyers and 4 helicopter carriers all capable of F-35B ops...

The RAN needs to be at least half the size of JMSDF if it wants to make China think before doing anything....that means a big SSN fleet and commensurate nuclear supply chain present inside Australian frontiers...the economics won't work out otherwise...

PS: Considering US descent into perennial bipolar schizophrenia every 4 years, I would be taking a long hard look at French and Israeli underwater combat suites, quietening tools etc., instead of hoping for integrating the AN/BYG-1 or equiv. inside the French made SSK/SSN

Pete said...

Hi antpla [at Feb 28, 2021, 10:29:00 PM]

Thanks for your praise "Thank you very much from Spain for this great blog, in which we can share our hobby and concerns"

Even if Australia bought the conventional Attack class sub from France, or competing conventional subs from Japan or Germany, Australia would always be dependent for spare parts, further training, many upgrades and manuals from those countries.

Its all part of the interdependent international arms trade.

Refueling the Barracuda class K15 reactor would most probably need to be done every 7-10 years by experts using French formula LEU.

Even if Australia bought SSNs from US or UK (with their high proliferation, NPT rules breaking, weapons grade HEU, though whole of life core reactors) we would still be highly dependent on the US or UK on nuclear maintenance advice. May even mean some US or UK nuclear engineers in the reactor bay during missions for the first few years.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi Gessler [at Mar 1, 2021, 11:16:00 AM]

Politically "Labor" (Australian Labor Party) has been bipartison for many years on major foreign policy issues, like the US alliance and the Quad. Labor has been a centrist party for decades - so (other than some isolated China beneficiaries $$ ) would remain non ideological about China.

The prospect of Australia buying nuclear propelled subs is a different matter. Labor has strong leftwing anti-nuclear traditions and usually courts a Greens environmental ally to form government. Shipbuilding trade union factions in Labor = jobs even building nuclear subs = may counteract leftwing anti-nuclear feelings.

Nuclear accidents haven't occurred in WESTERN NAVY nuclear subs for decades.

If you want nuclear accidents (or almost) note the Russians in 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-03/russia-submarine-fire-kills-14-losharik-nuclear-vladimir-putin/11273188

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir
@Mar 1, 2021, 2:38:00 PM

Yes the prospect of refueling K15s in France every 7-10 years is an inefficiency with cutting the hull then refueling process lasting much longer than the actual Aus-France-Aus transit time.

But the HEU UK or US alternatives may be politically, US/UK national security secrecy ToT, too high obstacles to be options. UK Astutes may be more easily obtainable with their smaller crew (than US Virginias) and whole of life (unlike French 7-10 year) reactor cores.

The whole major side issue of ALSO building land-based power reactors (and nuclear waste dumps) has always killed off Australia publicly revisiting SSN options.

Even the UK and France don't forsee 12 new SSNs for their much higher funded navies - so 6 or 8 it is for the RAN.

Australia cannot spend A$100 Billions a year buying all the conventional weapons you list. That is why Australia has a force-expanding US alliance and with NZ. With the Quad and closer relations with UK and and France militaries in the wings.

The French and Israeli underwater combat suites that include nuclear tipped cruise or ballistic missiles would be preferable if possible. When all is said and done nuclear retaliation against China would keep it honest.

Regards

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

I am not suggesting an Anglo-American HEU Option at all... I understand the attendant NPT proliferation concerns, likely veto from DC on such transfers..I suggest a HALEU-MEU option that allows cores to be used for the lifetime of the boat or even better a modular plug-in model for an essentially High Assay LEU reactor. Australia has the wherewithal to quickly expand Lucas Heights or if the public is skittish, locate it on the coast of the Pilbara, 100s of km north of Perth. Then use UHVDC lines to evacuate the power...China and India transfer power over 2000 km length already using 800-1100 kV UHVDC lines.

With climate change such as raging bush fires only slated to get worse, it might be a good idea to tell the Australian public how safe nuclear power actually is (and it is the safest accounting for all issues and comparison across coal to solar)...

While Australia cannot fling 100s of billions of dollars...it can certainly have a reasonably bigger fleet as I suggested above. Plus quiet help from India, France and Israel and viola a long range SLCM will be a quick reality (Aus. is a part of the MTCR too)...

At a very minimum 2 dozen P-8s, 3 dozen MH_60s, 8-10 SSNs and some UUVs are certainly needed even assuming the Quad does do what it has been promising to for a while now. Over time a few midget subs for inner EEZ patrolling might nicely complement the oceanic SSNs.

PS: Any one who is serious about addressing climate change cannot ignore nuclear power. And this nuclear waste storage is not all that hard. All of 65 years of Indian nuclear waste fits into a football field...After 65 years India only uses a small space at tarapur nuclear complex north of Mumbai to store waste in reinforced steel drums with lead tops.

https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2019-11/World_Nuclear_Waste_Report_2019_Focus_Europe_0.pdf

Irrational fear is not justified just because 90%+ of the country feels that way...IMHO.

Pete said...

Hi again GhalibKabir
your@Mar 2, 2021, 2:30:00 PM

Your "HALEU-MEU" point might be too technical for me to understand :)

1. "HALEU-MEU" what actual % U235 are you suggesting (5% to %?).

2. Are you suggesting Australia embark on developing its own submarine reactor? Noting even the UK saw this as too hard - so relied on the US design. France with its huge 60+ year nuclear industrial base has had years of problems getting more core life out of its 7 year K15s and miniaturising them enough to squeeze into Barracuda-Suffrens.

A big no :) - on PR and $Billions development grounds re "Australia has the wherewithal to quickly expand Lucas Heights or if the public is skittish, locate it on the coast of the Pilbara".

Renewable wind and especially solar cells (on home roofs, mass reflectors and battery collectors) have been doing very well in Australia. The hotter and dryer the better for solar cells.

All making land based power reactors out on cost and disaster/PR grounds. Land based power reactors linkage constantly kills SSNs for Australia.

I don't know if India's Mahan-possible viewpoints https://www.orfonline.org/research/making-indias-sea-power-formidable-and-future-ready/ for the Indian Ocean would expedite Indian help for Australian nuclear weapons or delivey vehicles.

But you are right re France's (Negev reactor and Jericho) help to Israel and their joint nuclear tests. Australia goes out of its way to support Israel for same future prospects I suspect.

Yes Aus has lots of P-8s, ASW Helos and ASW rotary UAVs, long range Triton UAVs and medium UUVs in pipeline. US alliance central. Quad yet to be tested. We have a a chronic lack of sub commanders (for even 5 servicable subs) so even "a few midget subs" requiring fully credentialled commanders are non-starters. Yes to Aus SSNs of course.

PS: We could Permanently send our nuclear waste (for a not insubstantial fee) to India, if you'll have it?

Thanks for
https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2019-11/World_Nuclear_Waste_Report_2019_Focus_Europe_0.pdf

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

1. HALEU is typically 19.75% U-235 (anything above 11% by some yardsticks and 5-20% as per USG). MEU is usually 20% enriched Uranium (see OSTI page 5 table note c)

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/12100555

https://ec.europa.eu/euratom/docs/ESA_HALEU_report_2019.pdf

Usually if I understand right, if the K-15 reactor can be properly packed with HALEU fuel, this should give lifetime fuel supply (opinions vary, but it will still be a LEU reactor)

So instead of making a new reactor, Aus should probably 'tweak' fuel enrichment needs within NPT boundaries and HALEU at 19.75% should not raise eyebrows and use it in the K-15.

Renewables have limitations even with batteries (I work in this area and finance such projects, I will tell you from experience, RE is necessary but not sufficient even with BESS)...you might be surprised at how much gas fired backup is available in Aus grids...

On cost, surprisingly if lifecycle costs of solar and wind are included (not to mention the intermittency vs base load thing that many greenies simply ignore), nuclear is not that disadvantageous as a source considering the huge PLF advantage as a 'base load'.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-08-13-mantashe-is-right-south-africa-must-build-more-nuclear-energy/

The intermittency issues even with the most optimistic battery tech related projections cannot wish away the reality that in the absence of coal and gas, nuclear is the main tool against climate change...ironically against humanity's worst enemy, nuke is the saviour :)


PS: If India's closed cycle goal of an FBR comes true then we might willingly get nuclear waste from across the world and burn it again as MOX..and people forget with 20 plus reactors, many in huge populated areas like Mumbai, Chennai...we have had no problems for 65 years now. alas Except for the BN-600/800, FBR remains reactor development's last mile.

PPS: I am not a salesman for nuclear but the reactor physics and project economics are solid in this case, you might want to see Michael Shellenberger's TED talks for proper numbers. once adjusted for GHG impact, the 'high cost' of nuclear is actually 'cheap' :)

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir
your@Mar 2, 2021, 10:06:00 PM

Thanks for HALEU typically 19.75% U-235 (anything above 11% by some yardsticks and 5-20% as per USG). MEU is usually 20% enriched Uranium

Thanks for those links.

I see the K15's Caramel U235 is just 5 to 7.5% https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx so lifetime core unlikely.

Maybe K15s in France's SSBNs and CVN have the space to pack in more U235 but thats no help to smaller capacity SSN K15s. So it seems 7-10 years refuel for the "BarSuf SSN" (you saw abbreviation here first :) stands.

Even "tweaking" K15 fuel enrichment that much is a huge job France has been unable to do in 20 years.

Yes I'm coming round to the view that large land based nuclear reactors (like France's) is the only baseload option with the shutdown of coal fired power stations in Aus. and our lack of sufficient water for hydropower in most areas.

PS: Thanks I might be sending some spent fuel India's way :)

PPS: I'll advise the Indian Government it was your idea and invite for U waste disposal at friendly low, low, prices.

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

Fuel tweaking for Barracuda is a decision that France decided to forgo and stick to 6% LEU while developing 'breches' or special hatches in the SSBNs to replace reactor cores within a few days at Cherbourg when patrol crews were being replaced and the boat restocked.

https://vcdnp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Occasional-Papers_Reducing-Risks-from-Naval-Nuclear-Fuel-2anfj76.pdf

Read the chapter on '6 Percent Solution' and the chapter by Lobner, very pertinent points are being raised in favour of a HEU base of LOS or Life of Ship SSN reactor core...

The problem is even with special 'breches' to rapidly re-load the core, lifecycle costs will be higher with a LEU boat..ultimately it is a political call.

If the French can ship the fuel matching the Ozzie SSNs re-stocking and crew change cycle, then with the least issues, the core re-loads can be done at the seaside at Osborne or Fremantle without allowing the greenie nitwits to start yapping about 'no n-boats in Sydney or Brisbane' etc....(quite meaninglessly, as it is most of the time)

Alternately, using HALEU instead of 6% LEU allows for the same reactor to be used with denser LEU fuel packing reducing the volume needed and possibly only one refueling needed.

e.g. UK has 93% HEU boats, implies making that boat a 6% LEU will lead to ~16x fuel core size increase and as you point out, smaller SSNs cannot afford that for a LOS core. But with 19.75% LEU, instead of 7-10 years, may be the core will just need to be changed once during mid-life refits and the existing K-15 can be easily used as the fuel rods are 3x denser compared to 6%...

so, instead of 6% LEU, a 15%-19% enriched fuel that is still proper LEU will imply the K-15 can be used easily with only one refuel say after 15 years. a politically palatable solution for all involved and all France will need to do is downblend HEU for Australia to HALEU levels before loading and ship fuel in modules to Osborne in time for plug-in and plug-out ops to occur. No hands dirtied and if land reactors run on NU or 3% LEU like India then Aus. has bonanza on its hands...

PS: If Australia gets land reactors that can burn Pu-239 as a MOX fuel, then it can benefit much more whilst allowing its 'chocolate eclair for a spine' politicians to buttress their non-proliferation credentials

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete
an interesting summary about the HEU/LEU issue in:
www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-10/features/feasibility-ending-heu-fuel-use-us-navy

take away:
-beyond arm control/proliferation issue this is an economical issue where countries w/o a"glut"of HEU due to disarmement treaty (France and China)did not wanted to maintain specific military very expensive HEU separation plants but use commercial sources of LEU multisourced
- once the whole system is designed (design, operation ,maintenance ..) the pro and co from a tactical/military standpoint are far from obvious..

For instance the refueling of french subs is done in military harbours,in Brest (SLBM) or Toulon(SSN) , not at the Cherbourg yard,every 7 to 10 years and takes 2 weeks (5 days in reference 14 for the Amethiste in 2005)during Engineering overhaul that last up to 14 months (needed anyway and not nuclear per se)
The system involves specific hatches and mobile airtight workshops that matches the hatches
Somme kind of swimming pool probably( but we are talking of reactor core of a few cubic meter ..)for intermediate storage


This is quite similar to N commercial reactors.In these cases the fuel in a dedicated container is shipped to the reprocessing plant in railcars or trailers across europe or was, (is still?) even sent back and force to Japan on a ship

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir
your@Mar 4, 2021, 8:12:00 PM

Under the overall understanding/cloud that Australia will not again be reviewing the SSN concept until about 2028, I’d say.

Australia’s has insufficient money and insufficient specialised submarine reactor knowledge to second guess or improve on the submarine reactor decisions of the West. ie. France, UK and US.

Thanks for George Washington University’s sponsored long PDF “...Oct 2018 paper: REDUCING RISKS FROM NAVAL NUCLEAR FUEL” https://vcdnp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Occasional-Papers_Reducing-Risks-from-Naval-Nuclear-Fuel-2anfj76.pdf In it:

MATIAS SPEKTOR’s “Brazil’s Nuclear Naval Fuel: Choices and a Road Map for Productive Engagement” adds a LEU submarine reactor project by a non-nuclear weapons power perspective. Non-proliferation concerns. Without the original impetus of Argentina being an arms race threat to Brazil SN-BR will continue to progress very slowly. The US is happy with such slow progress and would be alarmed if Brazilian and Argie SSNs one day faced off against each other.

GEORGE M. MOORE’s Chapter from page 39 seems based on the astounding expectation that now that the USN (and with it the UK RN) have spent many $Billions evolving to world’s-best all of sub life core HEU reactors the USN should now reverse capability towards LEU reactors. With (page 47) the risk a retrograde to 6% LEU “would significantly disadvantage the US Navy in comparison to other navies.” but Moore argues, if navies like China’s and Russia’s were NICE they would follow the US’s lead toward nuclear niceness.

LOBNER (Page 48) “The [USN] concluded that LEU fuel “would not directly produce a more militarily desirable reactor design.” In the view of Naval Reactors, substituting LEU for HEU in the fuel systems in current-generation naval reactors would result in a significantly reduced core lifetime, require a larger reactor size, or both. The [USN] estimated that additional refuelings of LEU reactors would raise the cost of operating the fleet because of the need to service reactors. Other disadvantages lie in reduced ship availability, increased costs for the disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste, increased [page 49] occupational radiation exposure, and increased manufacturing and procurement costs to build refueling cores."

Pete find’s Lobner’s realpolitik over George M. Moore’s idealistic niceness morwe convincing. So I’m happy with Lobner’s reporting of the world expert USN’s views. If the US were not hesitant, then a future US SSN type should be Australia’s choice sometime in the 2040s.

Whole of life core means the specialised, high controversial and dangerous, HEU U235 handling could be done in the US without worrying the Australian public.

Choice of a French of UK SSN [forget no-record Brazil] is another 2028 Australian policy milestone toward first possible SSN deployment in the 2040s.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi (probably French) Anonymous
Your@Mar 6, 2021, 3:46:00 AM

As Australian consideration of the SSN issue might be revisited in 2028 or later I'm sticking to SSKs. But thanks for summarising yet another long sub reactor essay.

Re: summary of HEU/LEU issues in www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-10/features/feasibility-ending-heu-fuel-use-us-navy of 2016.

[Pete comment - The care and feeding of SSN reactors will always be hugely expensive and in Australia highly controversial - to the point of no-chance until the 2040s. Buying already enriched reactors would be better than enriching U235 in Australia. So whole-of-life US or UK cores would be far preferable to refueling K15 reactos every 7-10 years in France.]

Thanks for info: "For instance the refueling of french subs is done in military harbours,in [France ie.] Brest (SLBM) or Toulon (SSN), not at the Cherbourg yard, every 7 to 10 years and takes 2 weeks (5 days in reference 14 for the Amethiste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubis-class_submarine#AMETHYSTE_rebuild in 2005). "During Engineering overhaul that last up to 14 months (needed anyway and not nuclear per se) The system involves specific hatches and mobile airtight workshops that matches the hatches Some kind of swimming pool probably ( but we are talking of a reactor core of a few cubic meters) for intermediate storage. This is quite similar to N commercial reactors. In these cases the fuel in a dedicated container is shipped to the reprocessing plant in railcars or trailers across Europe or was, (is still?) even sent back and forth to Japan by ship."

All looks too expensive, too hard and politically unfeasible. Which is why the Australian Navy has stuck with SSKs for 50 years since 1970 and for the next 20 years, out to 2040.

Regards

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

I fully understand that anything resembling domestic HEU storage or on-land ENR facilities are a big no no from a public uproar perspective (more importantly, the technological challenges that Australia is likely to face after a near 30 year gap post Hawke's government selling off SILEX ENR tech, is gonna be quite high)...engineers don't grow on trees and nuclear engineering ecosystems take decades to set up. so all your points are accepted in toto, for now. These are serious and realistic bottlenecks as of today.

That is why, a modular fueling with HALEU down-blended from french HEU stocks or getting Urenco to supply downblended HEU to Toulon for fueling in French waters might be a good way to allay concerns in the interim and get the SSNs into service...

In the interim, The RAN could get sailors to be deputed on one of the Rubis class SSNs to learn the ropes, so to speak, so that crews and commanders get ready in time for 2035-2040 along with parallel political groundwork to decide on 'rules of engagement or use or whatever', as even firing conventional SLCMs from SSNs will need a proper doctrine backed by practical operational guidebooks for the RAN...such things take 2 decades to settle at a very minimum. Studying the Indian and the Chinese experience could help here...Arihant went on the drawing board in 1998 and the first 'practical patrol' occurred in 2018. The SSN leases helped the IN build a set of 2-3 crews using the SSN Nerpa as a training vessel (not to mention 500 IN personnel learning hands-on in Russia for years before)....

Considering a lead time for a well established SSN fleet of 2 decades, RAN and Aus Gov simply do not have the endless luxury of pussyfooting around the choices...., already NG has them over a barrel, better to get started on the possible bits first such as crew training on French SSNs and exploring the practicalities of getting the French to repack fuel modules in the K-15 with HALEU for LOS core, not to mention pushing NG to open another assembly line for the BarSuf SSNs once the lead boat settles post sea trials. For NG, 3-4 years is enough to train a few more engineers and get a few more high class welders etc..

PS: As things stand today, an Ozzie SSN might see the light of the day only by 2040-2050, by when I will be pushing 70 (by 2050 that is)...

Anonymous said...

I keep seeing suggestions that Australia should go for SSN’s. Yes it’s possible but highly unlikely. The idea that Lucas Heights could be used to train significant numbers of nuclear engineers is fanciful. It is a small research reactor that also produces medical & industrial isotopes. Unlike a nuclear power station, there are a whole lot of other disciplines involved (research remember). Nuclear physicists, medical, most engineering types & other scientists such as mathematicians, computers etc. Lucas Heights supples not only Australia but the South Pacific (including nuclear unfriendly NZ) with medical isotopes (some of which have half lives measured in days or less).

It needs to be remembered that not all nuclear engineers are interested in (or capable of) a military career. Even fewer are capable of a submarine career. There is a reason why the navy pays bonuses to submariners & still struggles to crew 6 submarines. Ask any navy - the submarine service is the hardest to recruit for. How many nuclear engineers do you need to train to find one submariner?

SSN’s are hunter-killers. SSK’s are ambush hunters. They work & operate differently. If you want to go a long way fast - use a SSN. If you want to be sneaky- use a SSK. There are things you can do with a SSK that a SSN can only dream of. A SSK is noisey when running on diesels, but very hard to detect when running on batteries. SSN’s have cooling pumps that can not be turned off for any length of time & a heat signature that is a give away in shallow water. A SSN in mid ocean thinks its untouchable, until you ask it to transit a choke point. A choke point favours an ambush hunter. To the north of Australia is a number of shallow water choke points, with some such as near Timor, with deep water nearby, often frequented by SSN’s. Australia wants to go a long way fast & be sneaky. The two do not compute.

Also nuclear waste is often discounted in some circles as a major problem. It is not just the used fuel rods (which have been recycled for years). The UK has yet to fully decommission a single nuclear submarine. Not one! They are still all lined up waiting & the expected costs keep climbing while they try to figure out how to do it. Think about that - one of the worlds oldest nuclear powers with its first commissioned nuclear submarine being in 1963 (it’s among those waiting since being withdrawn in 1980 - more than 40 years ago). The cost of building & operating nuclear reactors is nothing compared to the cost of getting rid of them. 10,000 years is a long time.

Thorium - maybe.