"AUKUS will bring together our sailors, our scientists, and our industries to maintain and expand our edge in military capabilities and critical technologies, such as cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and undersea domains.
You know, as a key project under AUKUS, we are launching
consultations with Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed,
nuclear-powered submarines for its navy — conventionally armed.
I want to be exceedingly clear about this: We’re not
talking about nuclear-armed submarines. These are conventionally armed
submarines that are powered by nuclear reactors. This technology is
proven. It’s safe. And the United States and the UK have been
operating nuclear-powered submarines for decades.
I have asked Secretary [of Defense] Austin and the Department of Defense to
lead this effort for the U.S. government in close collaboration with the
Department of Energy and Department of State.
Our governments will now launch an 18-month consultation period to determine every element of this
program - from workforce, to training requirements, to production timelines, to
safeguards and nonproliferation measures, and to nuclear stewardship and safety
— to ensure full compliance with each of our nation’s commitments under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We’ll all undertake this effort in a way that reflects the longstanding leadership in global nonproliferation and rigorous verification standards, in partnership and consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency."
7 comments:
My takeaways:
S9G PWR powering Virginia Class has a 33 year operational live without the need for refuelling. It is therefore conceivable that AUKUS jointly develop a new PWR for the UK SSN(R), Aus SSN and US SSN(X) Virginia follow on, mass produced in the US for all three navies, with a ‘sealed’ reactor container. Any major maintenance can be done in US/UK yards, reactor decommissioning by the USN.
Both the SSN(R) and SSN(X) are now in development, thought the first boats won’t be laid down until at least the mid-2030s. Depending on Australian urgency, they might be used as the basis for the SSN(A), instead of an Astute or Virginia derivative, with Australia building the ‘first-in-class’ in Adelaide.
Manning will also be a critical Australian requirement, especially as crew size will double between the Collins class and SSN(A).
Hi Shawn C
The the UK Royal Navy (RN) SSNs tradionally use variants of the latest reactors the US will supply the UK RN with. Presumably the US would provide the same to Australia.
The following references may be useful about the PWR3 reactor for UK's next SSN after the Astutes.
---------------------
https://www.lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdf
"In May 2011, the UK MoD Defense Board said the Rolls-Royce PWR3 reactor would be
‘based on a modern U.S. plant’ and U.S. support provided ‘independent peer review of
the UK’s NNPP capability and helped to optimize its PWR3 concept design.’ The U.S. Virginia-class S9G reactor plant is a likely candidate."
-----------
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR3
--------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Propulsion_and_general_specifications indicates
"The boats of the Astute class are powered by a Rolls-Royce PWR2 (Core H) (a pressurised water reactor)"
1. Frankly, going down the rabbit hole of customization of an SSN-A is best avoided especially as any downblending of HEU and a workable LEU reactor will take time and given US opposition to it, will need Australia to foot massive bills, time to get one done and build an industry to support in Australia (in turn costing more money)
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/c/1963/files/2018/10/Occasional-Papers_Reducing-Risks-from-Naval-Nuclear-Fuel-2anfj76.pdf
The US made NGR core will still be 93% HEU effectively implying WGU or Weapons Grade Uranium on Aussie waters/soil... I guess that ain't gonna be easy to explain to a tetchy public.
2. Manning crews: Going by rotation convention, 4 boats need 6 crews for alert/adequate availability for 2 subs on continual deployment...which I am afraid is the maximum Australia can manage in the next 10-15 years (assuming generously, 2 collins crews become available as the boats retire slowly)...an 'up and running' nuclear RAN will be a reality only by 2045-2050 at the earliest, assuming they start running seriously from Jan 1, 2022.
PS: Very likely Australia can max afford 3-4 boats as they will simply be unable to man much more crew intensive n-boats....and if only 2 boats are gonna putatively patrol the oceans around Australia then that will be simply inadequate and horrendously expensive for the price paid
PPS: If WGU grade naval reactors are so generously leased to a select few...the reactions are going to be fun to watch...especially from China which is very likely to argue LEU based SSN leases to non-NPT states should hence be ok and lease one to Karachi.
Hi Ghalib
Very true that many of the Australian. NZ and Pacific Islands public will simply love 90+% weapons grade HEU being used in Aus SSNs, in the region. Aus SSN's will be nuclear powered weapons breaking the spirit, though not the letter, of the following
"South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which formalises a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific. The treaty bans the use, testing, and possession of nuclear weapons within the borders of the zone.[1][2]
It was signed by the South Pacific nations of Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu on the island of Rarotonga (where the capital of the Cook Islands is located) on 6 August 1985, came into force on 11 December 1986 with the 8th ratification, and has since been ratified by all of those states.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rarotonga
There are other non-proliferation legal instruments that will need to be addressed, expalined away, or, at least, ignored.
8 Australian SSNs
BTW "The Australian" has an excellent article. of Sept 16, 2021,
indicating there will be "eight" 8 Australian SSNs
This article is brought to us via China, https://cn.theaustralian.com.au/2021/09/16/58695/
just right-click mouse to Translate into English
In the small lines under Biden and Morisson anouncement we can read :
"Australia will become a new advanced submarine base for US Navy submarines in the indopacific region. The submarines will be build in the US, and payed by Australian taxpayers. Of course the budget is not an issue as everybody knows that 7000 tons nuclear submarines are 3 times cheaper than 4000 tons diesel submarines. To conclude, US can offer to Australia a true independance and soveregnity. For that purpose, US will propose to add another star on its flag for Australia. ".
From the NPT, can a nation export 93% WGU? I do not think so. Of course there is nothing that can prevent US from doing so. Then, what is our moral authority to beat up on NK and others on uranium enrichment.
I agree that for Australia to have SSN make sense from a patrol perspective. But it will likely encourage "accelerated" nuclear proliferation in the region. We already have an arms race between China and US (China is tripling and many more its silos), as well as one between ROK and NK.
NPT is on its death bed with this deal.
KQN
Post a Comment