The Australian government has conjured up photo opportunities (one above) which could be considered to imply Australia will be acquiring an Astute-class SSN as its "AUKUS submarine" quite soon.
But, due to nuclear training of Australians requirements, such an acquisition could only be fully Australian crewed in 15+ years. If you throw in a "must be built in Adelaide" requirement, then 20+ years from now. A delay of 15+ or even 20+ years would be too late for a UK-designed Astute-with-PRW2-reactor production line in the UK and/or Australia.
You'll note that the UK designing most of "Australia's" AUKUS SSN (especially the hull) is taken as a given by sub watchers. In that regard see the photo of a UK design (yes an Astute, with no US Virginia in sight) on Australia's (AUKUS) Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force website.
Meanwhile the Combat System (30-40% of the build) will be very likely integrated by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin had been the designated Combat System integrator for the Attack-class, up until September 2021.
Other reasons Australia is not buying the UK's Astute-class SSNs.
- The Astutes' general obsolescence by the late 2030s.
- Also see the UK shipyard built Astute-class's "cost overruns and delays".
The major specific reason Australia is NOT buying the Astute is the Astute's PWR2 reactor and in connection with that, safety. The PWR2 (on UK
Vanguard SSBNs as well as the Astutes) will not only be obsolete by the 2030s, but there are safety concerns that now cannot be fully reversed.
A submarine reactor is the most expensive and safety sensitive component of a nuclear sub. You basically build a submarine around the reactor. Even fitting a new, safer reactor to an Astute class sub would change so many things (eg. the whole submarine's dimensions, displacement, reactor management electronics, buoyancy and "quieting") that it would fundamentally be a new submarine - with a new name.
The authors of Wiki report that, by 1997, the UK realised:
“the size of the Rolls-Royce PWR2 required a much larger [SSN, in terms of] (width and length) and significantly improved acoustic quieting. A new understanding was reached between the [UK Ministry of Defence] and GEC-Marconi that this would be an entirely new class [called Astutes], and far more complex than originally envisioned.[8]"
PWR2 Safety
The authors of Wiki further report:
"A safety assessment of the PWR2 design by the [UK] Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator in November 2009, was released under a [UK Freedom of Information] request in March 2011.[8][9] The regulator identified two major areas where UK practice fell significantly short of comparable good practice, loss-of-coolant accident and control of submarine depth following emergency reactor shutdown.[10][9]
The
regulator concluded that PWR2 was "potentially vulnerable to a structural
failure of the primary circuit", which was a failure mode with significant
safety hazards to crew and the public.[9][11]
In January 2012 radiation was detected in
the PWR2 test reactor's coolant
water, caused by a microscopic breach in fuel cladding. This discovery led
to HMS Vanguard being
scheduled to be refueled early and contingency measures being applied to
other Vanguard and Astute-class submarines, at a
cost of £270 million. This was not revealed to the public until 2014.[12][13]"
6 comments:
Maybe they should buy Dreadnought subs. See link. Oops.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article255656871.html
KQN
Crikey KQN!
Thanks for locating https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article255656871.html
What with Elaine Marie Thomas doing no good since 1985 https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article255656871.html did she also talk to/work for the Russians?
1985 being a little early for the Chinese? Or not?
Was she the long lost love child of John Walker - a spymaster/ringleader, who just happened to spy "for the Soviet Union from 1967 to 1985". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker
John Walker and Elaine Thomas have 1985 in common. Coincidence?!...or not.
Creepy Aye :)
Worth a Netflix miniseries.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Pete
The more you look at this situation it is a real mess without even mid term solutions
Australia wanted to improve its maritime defenses facing a Chines N sub build - in particular on the critical South East (from Brisbane to Sydney). N sub would not be fooling around the shallow waters of Indonesia /New Guinea, but rather sail at 25+ knots towards Vanuatu , New Caledonia ( 500 miles from Australia )in a week submerged..
W/O Nuclear for political reasons, , Australia needed very large SSK. Only 2 credible suppliers could fulfill the order: Japanese and French. The Australian wanted also to have the boat made in Australia and a suporting industry built
The Japanese had an excellent product,may be superior, but were not willing or unable to consider the TOT. At the same time a Japanese Option was looking anti Chinese (large customer..) and carried some emotions
The French option was highly credible (one sub /year over the last 60 years,track record of succesful TOT in Brazil , India in Malaysia to some extent, could lead to nuclear if needed, and was offering the sharing of naval/aerial military facilities in New Caledonia
( a modern island ,; 350 K french citizen (so far..) with all the infrastructure for refueling , changing crew , maintenance..or refueling P8 ASW plane... Right where you need to be..!. At the same time , French Systems are ITAR free,like all European at that time relationn with China were not antagonistic.
A similar situation exist in Reunion Island ,700K French citizen , unlikely to change, with the India/France defense pact where the Indian Navy and patrol planes use facilities. , thus increasing significantly their active missions (ie not ferrying)over the "Indian Ocean". Probably also helping with facilites in the UAE and Djibouti (where he Chinese , the Us are also present)
Clearly an SSK forward positioned in Vanuatu ,(still strong French presence) or a forward base ( obviously not the wording to be used!) in New Caledonia change the picture and reduces the disadvantage of SSK vs N.
France was negotiating a defense pact with Australia and it was obviously not to protect Europe from russian tanks agression !(if it really exists..?). France is concerned about Chinese mounting pressure in Vanuatu, NC and Polynesia
Hi Anonymous from France [at Nov 10, 2021, 1:15:00 AM]
Thanks for the hard to get info on:
- French designed sub deals, and
- especially, France in the Indo-Pacific
Please note that Australia's "critical South East" extends not only from "(from Brisbane to Sydney)" but Brisbane to Melbourne or even Brisbane to Adelaide - if one wants to get really pedantic (like moi).
Long sell Naval Group!
:)
Pete
I have seen a few suggestions from knowledgeable people that an Astute with US reactor is doable (ie swap out the UK reactor for the US one). The Virginia is narrower but longer. It has been said that it should have no problem fitting & that the PWR3 is based off the same tech. Due to their higher production rate, getting a US reactor is probably easier (a US equivalent to PWR3 is already available, but PWR3 itself is not). The advantage otherwise of the Astute is manning levels, basic CONOPS, sensors (many of the Attack sensors were the same as Astute & are part of the Collins LOTE). As well it is likely & jigs etc are already or soon will be available to be shifted to ASC/BAE Australia as the last two Astute’s get progressively finished. ie it is possible that some tooling could be shifted almost immediately as the last in build Astute’s are already a considerable way through construction.
Well folks,the Virginia Class is not on the cards, sorry they are booked out way past our deadlines. This leaves the Los Angeles Class with double the crew of the Collins. Meanwhile our ever ready government is looking at a Collins 2 upgraded in both length and capability as a stop gap. Really probably the most sensible nuclear stopgap.
How delicious the irony.
Post a Comment