For what a prediction of events further than 15 years in the future is worth:
Anthony Galloway for the Sydney Morning Herald, February 7, 2022, reports :
Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton “…revealed
he was extremely confident that Australia would have its first
nuclear-powered submarine before 2038, saying recent discussions with
American and British officials under the AUKUS agreement had reassured him that
the submarines would be built years earlier than many defence experts expected.”
“…The Defence Minister’s comments come before the arrival in Australia of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who will take part in a meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue’s foreign ministers in Melbourne this week, before travelling to Fiji and Hawaii.”
Pete Comment
1. Note that 2038 is in 14 year Gap between likely production of UK submarines. That is the last Astute-class submarine is "expected" to end production in 2026 and many tentatively predict the next UK SSN class, "SSN(R)", will be delivered in the 2040s.
But if the UK, by the mid 2030s, has developed a reactor small enough to fit in an SSN(R) (maybe a small PWR3 or future "PWR4".
and Australian money is enough of a "develop SSN(R) faster" incentive,
then, "before 2038" may be doable.
2. If Minister Dutton has a US designed SSN in mind, then the above UK SSN assumptions may be off the track. More details, suggesting a whole US designed SSN, are needed.
Sounds optimistic to the point of foolishness to say the least. Where will the crews come from? Where is the plan for the supporting infra, engineers, technicians etc? They need a decade and a half to get into some shape at a minimum....
ReplyDeleteGiven the actual manufacturing lead times, the final designs and solid plans need to be in place by 2024-25 and auxiliary shore facilities in Australia need to be ready latest by 2030-2031....
Sometimes It is hard to fathom if they are being serious or if they are taking everyone for boofheads...
At this point it is obviously pure speculation to predict which SSN design Australia will proceed with. If an existing mature design is intended and either Rolls Royce (UK) or BWXT (US) is able to supply the required reactors then the 16 year delivery timeframe Dutton’s 2038 figure implies should be more than sufficient to build an Australian SSN. Even allowing three years to upgrade the ASC yard to nuclear engineering standards, the timeframe still leaves a generous 13 year build time. So this is hardly news.
ReplyDeleteI think the significant part is Dutton’s confidence implies that either Rolls Royce or BWXT can indeed supply the extra reactors required, presumably without adversely impacting the RN or USN SSN programs. If both can, we might even be able to get some price competition in this project.
We should not underestimate Australia’s bargaining power in this project either. The value of Australia’s SSN budget, implied from the previous Attack Class budget, makes it one of the world’s largest defence contracts. It would be a prize worth winning for either BAE/Rolls Royce or EB/HI and BWXT. For example, the total cost of the RN’s Dreadnought program (£31B = $59B Au) is less.
So while there are many challenges, I personally remain optimistic Aussie SSNs are an achievable goal.
Hi GhalibKabir [at Feb 7, 2022, 9:48:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteYes, an SSK program frequently takes 15 years from announcement of winning foreign prime contractor to launch of first sub. So 2021-2038 = 17 years, for Australia (not UK or US shipyards?) to launch a revolutionary new Aus SSN is indeed ambitious ous.
Infrastructure and public acceptance bothers me. Would the good citizens of:
- Adelaide, in environmentally sensitive South Australia, accept nuclear reactor sections at their Adelaide shipyard?
- for Sydneysiders, an Aussie SSN "forward" base in Sydney Harbour?
It is more likely Perth-ians will continue to accept US, UK SSNs and then Aus SSN at HMAS Sttirling, just south of Perth https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/05/us-nuclear-subs-that-temporarily-docked.html
All that Federal Aus money for those cities, plus threat from China, may open doors to those cities.
Regards Pete
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
In development of submarine, it takes at least 15 years ( 10 years for basic designing, 5 years for building).
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 8, 2022, 8:06:00 AM]
ReplyDeleteTrue "At this point it is obviously pure speculation to predict which SSN design Australia will proceed with."
But "price competition" between UK and US reactors is complex. Which UK or US reactor Australia selects, in practice, will also select the UK or US SSN that uses the reactor. This is because the dimensions and associated electricals of the reactor defines the dimentions, propulsion and (non-propulsion elecrical) "Hotel load" aspects of the submarine.
As things stand Australia will already be using the US Combat system (30% costs of SSNs) whether we choose UK or US hulls and reactors or not.
I see "BWXT (US)" is BWX Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: BWXT)...is a supplier of nuclear components and fuel to the U.S." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWX_Technologies .
I don't know if BWXT supplies "raw" reactor components or complete submarine reactors.
Or does the US Department of Energy, and/or USN and or other entities actally turn all this into usable reactors, like the Virginia's.
This is noting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Specifications indicates:
"Propulsion: S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horsepower.[97] Nuclear core life estimated at 33 years.[98] Nuclear fuel manufactured by BWX Technologies.[99][100]"
AN ANSWER MAY BE at S9G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor :
"This pressurized water reactor (PWR) style nuclear reactor, designed by Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (then managed by General Electric), is designed to have increased energy density, and new plant components, including a new steam generator design featuring improved corrosion resistance and reduced life-cycle costs.
The steam generator will alleviate the corrosion concerns encountered in existing designs of steam generators, while reducing component size and weight and providing greater flexibility in overall arrangement.
The reactor is designed to operate for 33 years without refueling.[1][2]
The reactor is estimated to generate 210 megawatts (MWth) [3] driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems that was originally planned for the Royal Navy.[4]"
------------------
Yes, if Australia was prepared to pay so much for the 70-80 year Attack class Program (Life) we will be willing to pay much higher for the Aus SSN Program.
Yes the Aus SSN is achievable. My main reservations centre on:
- public/political acceptance of sub reactors in/near our major cities, and
- Adelaide shipyard lifting its standards and timelines for the more precise building and safety realities of SSNs.
Regards
Pete
Pete
ReplyDeleteI agree raising standards in the shipyard is the greatest concern. That is achievable, but will require action on infrastructure, training and management. The Rand report on the revitalisation of the BAE Barrow shipyard during the Astute program, overseen by technical assistance from the Electric Boat Company, is relevant. A similar approach at Adelaide would seem advisable, but is also possible given USN support.
On the political question regarding acceptance in Adelaide, I admit to bias as I live in Adelaide. I have seen little evidence of significant opposition to them being nuclear. It isn’t a talking point. The main objection to the SSN decision in Adelaide was the delay to promised jobs from the Attack Class program, already several years behind original promises from Chris Pyne. Chris Pyne traded on that promise since 2015. Also several local businesses that invested in working with Naval Group have lost money.
The SA State election is now 2 months away and I have not seen nuclear power raised as an election issue. The main political risk in Adelaide is not building nuclear subs, but breaking the job promise. Labor has mentioned this several times. This is why I have repeatedly said the main political risk if Labor gain power is not following through on local construction jobs. That would kill it. See
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/11/09/labor-talks-up-sa-jobs-risk-from-new-subs-deal/