tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post8463736848149266680..comments2024-03-30T00:14:23.992+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: Australia's high cost, less than "regionally superior" Future SubmarinesPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-46057374901117252342016-03-06T08:11:14.805+11:002016-03-06T08:11:14.805+11:00TKMS is not building any submarines for Turkey, in...TKMS is not building any submarines for Turkey, instead they are paying damages for not having started their part of the program. I dont think this will lead to anything like a local production program for their subs without major cost and time.<br />The only place the local production has worked is Korea where they have more or less a production program over many years with different models.<br /><br /><br />Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-28509956882254544012016-03-03T23:05:14.428+11:002016-03-03T23:05:14.428+11:00Dear Ztev Konrad,
TKMS was able to provide an 80%...Dear Ztev Konrad,<br /><br />TKMS was able to provide an 80% Australian (+NZ) content for Anzac-class frigates. <br /><br />Maybe Australia needs a iron work to produce high grade steel. Maybe ThyssenKrupp is interested to build one down under.<br /><br />Turkey is building their Type 214 with ship sets for the propulsion system.<br /><br />The less one competitor has knowledge how to transfer work to the building country the more fiasco you can expect. DCNS and TKMS have both huge knowledge doing this. You can expect less Australian content or higher costs from a competitor with less knowledge on that field.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaub<br />MHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-36053992874209557482016-03-02T11:52:34.409+11:002016-03-02T11:52:34.409+11:00Hi HK, Anonymous and KQN
Some very interesting po...Hi HK, Anonymous and KQN<br /><br />Some very interesting points on nuclear propelled and within that Virginia vs Barracuda.<br /><br />I'll explore that in an article on Thursday or Friday.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-67473735724718680172016-03-01T16:42:35.293+11:002016-03-01T16:42:35.293+11:00Building, operating and re-fueling nuclear reactor...Building, operating and re-fueling nuclear reactors makes them a rather expensive <br />proposition. <br /><br />One of the things that makes the Virginia SSNs so attractive is that they don't need<br />to be re-fueled, and the technology is improving:<br /><br />http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/Pages/NuclearPowerPlantsonNewSubmarinesMayLast40PlusYears.aspx<br /><br />Quotes:<br /><br />"The Virginia-class attack submarines were the first to have a core reactor designed <br />to last the life of the vessel, which for it, is about 33 years."<br /><br />"The Navy hopes to have the first replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missile <br />submarine on duty by 2031. When that vessel is launched, the onboard nuclear power <br />plant is expected to last its entire 40-year service life."<br /><br /><br />========================================<br /><br /><br />Also, other reactor types in development may offer new options for naval propulsion:<br /><br /><br />http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/disruptive-advanced-nuclear-design-is.html<br /><br /><br />http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/lockheed-martin-compact-fusion-reactor.html<br /><br /><br />========================================<br /><br /><br />Note that powerplants like this won't necessarily be just for Submarines. As energy-<br />hungry weapon systems like lasers and railguns are deployed, Navies may show more <br />interest in rectors like the ones described above for surface ships as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-49186488377359855482016-03-01T11:47:58.075+11:002016-03-01T11:47:58.075+11:00But hardly expensive either.
For the Rubis SSNs t...But hardly expensive either.<br /><br />For the Rubis SSNs the cost of the nuclear fuel itself was under ~EUR 60 million every 7 years (including shore based support costs). The cost of each major docking was another ~EUR 120 million, but most of that is unrelated to the refueling and would happen anyway... So call it maybe 200 million for refueling over the course of the sub's life... and of course the fuel is much cheaper to both produce and dispose of.<br />-HKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-12930105814845682262016-03-01T03:27:17.235+11:002016-03-01T03:27:17.235+11:00The costs of the Barracuda do not include the cost...The costs of the Barracuda do not include the costs of the 2 re-fueling events during the submarine 30 year product life. Those are hardly cheap.<br />The nuclear reactor in the Barracuda is based on a commercial reactor hence the re-fueling needs every 10 years (an improvement on the previous 7 year refueling requirement).<br />France's commercial nuclear reactors uses MOX at ~30% of the fuel in the reactor core. The use of MOX is to achieve an equivalent enriched uranium level of 4.5% and hence a greater burnt out energy in a LWR. One can debate forever on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of plutonium (aka MOX) as in France or some reactors in Japan but the recent experiences of Fukushima will make it a very hard sell politically anywhere.<br />KQNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-7552412446290086182016-02-29T13:34:48.167+11:002016-02-29T13:34:48.167+11:00The problem with setting such a high price is that...The problem with setting such a high price is that the suppliers expectations are now much higher too match. There is a bit of financial wizardry in the $50 bill is really $30 bill at current prices and as mentioned covers support costs into the future, so with the 1:3 ration does that the the present dollars construction budget is around $10-12 billion ?<br /><br />If the boats are primarily built in Australia, then a massive amount of the equipment will come from overseas. Starting with the high strength steel for the hull. Would Australia even be up to producing such small quantities. ( Continued production of current steelworks doesnt look good)<br />Then if you look at other items like the torpedo tubes and the handling system, all imported . All the optronics and radars on the telescopic masts, all imported. The propulsion system, gearboxes and propellers , all imported.<br />A lot of other systems for subs are specific to that sort of vessel and the need for some to be exposed to up to 3-400m working depths and be super quiet. The materials are very specialised alloys and even small changes in spec can lead to either expensive maintenance or even catastrophic failure.<br />The idea that much could be made in Australia is laughable. Perhaps the galley fittings and the crew bunks!<br />Really the best that can be hoped for is that major sections are welded and fitted out overseas and minor fitting out and final welding done in the local dockyard.Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-32450307530564577132016-02-29T11:18:09.220+11:002016-02-29T11:18:09.220+11:00Harry J. Kazianis thinks selling Virginias to Aust...Harry J. Kazianis thinks selling Virginias to Australia would be a great idea:<br /><br />http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sale-americas-lethal-nuclear-powered-submarines-15344<br /><br /><br />====================================<br /><br /><br />Though I wonder if it would work out any better than Canada's attempts to purchase <br />SSNs back in the 1980's:<br /><br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine<br /><br />http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no4/lajeunes-eng.asp<br /><br />http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=06b557bc-bbc0-4543-90e3-4da70001bef6<br /><br /><br />====================================<br /><br /><br />While U.S. opposition wouldn't be a problem, as it was for Canada, you can bet the <br />anti-nuke crowd (with possible covert Chinese support) would be up in arms over the <br />issue.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-71306073367468807982016-02-29T07:11:17.475+11:002016-02-29T07:11:17.475+11:0050 billion? Wow. You could comfortably buy 12 SSNs...50 billion? Wow. You could comfortably buy 12 SSNs for under AU$25 billion - half the price.<br /><br />(The 6 Barracudas cost AUD$ 13 billion, including combat systems and 5 years of training/logistics, add another ~$1.5B for each additional hull).<br /><br />-HKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com