In response to Shawn C’s comment
of March 10, 2025, I (Pete) say:
Very true and disturbing about the possibility the US may retrospectively heighten ITAR regulations to block Australian access to US and US (via the UK) AUKUS technology. That may see the US reneging on
AUKUS Pillar One (Virginia SSNs) and even Pillar Two "AI, cybersecurity
and Quantum computing" including US Anduril and Australia DoD/RAN developed GHOST SHARK XLUUVs.
Also the US could force the UK to block Australian access to US content/inventions the US passed to the UK eg. in UK reactors for SSN-AUKUS submarines intended for Australian in the late 2030s to 2050s.
I've been looking at the possibility of South Korea (SK) developing a
nuclear powered submarine (variously called KSS-N, KSSN and KSSX-N) in several
articles since 2012. See https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/search?q=kss-n
which yields:
"South Korean...Nuclear KSSX-N Option"
of Feb 22, 2012 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2009/09/south-korea-has-bought-six-more-u-214.html
and
"South Korean Submarines, 3,000+ ton KSS-III, Nuclear
Potential"
of 16 April 2015 at
https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/04/south-korean-submarines-3000-ton-kss.html
What I suspect is currently an NK “nuclear submarine” mock-up or
animation at http://www.hisutton.com/North-Korea-Nuclear-Submarine-OSINT.html
may partly be NK responding one better
to South Kora’s https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/korean-smr-powered-container-ship-design-revealed
The US has always actively prevented Canada from obtaining SSNs – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition
. This is due to US-Canadian national competition regarding Arctic sea lanes
and resources and the US desire to retain its nuclear submarine ownership
monopoly in “America’s Western Hemisphere”. Warming of arctic waters, freeing up shipping and submarine access, will only
increase US determination to be the SSN monopolist of the Western Hemisphere.
Delays in SK being a potential SSN supplier to Australia includes the
20-40 years SK might take to produce a stealthy SSN design. It has taken the
super or great nuclear powers decades to develop quiet SSNs.
Also SK (if unprotected by the unreliable US) is extremely vulnerable to land
invasion or "nuking" by neighboring NK, China or Russia. Unlike
France, SK has no nuclear deterrent to defend its future SSN shipyard and no
current second generation Suffren class SSN already in the water.
Without the US protecting SK, SK's nuclear armed neighbours might take extreme
steps to stop SK developing nuclear weapons, SSBNs or SSNs. The same goes for
Japan. Japan modifying its 1970s-90s Mutsu nuclear ship reactor
into a submarine reactor https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/search?q=mutsu
might be violently stopped by Japan’s authoritarian neighbours.
Interesting about Singapore's SMR studies. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/case-made-for-smrs-to-be-built-underground-to-protect-from-military-and-natural-threats-25-11-2024/
of Nov 12, 2024:
“Small modular reactors (SMRs) should be built underground, including in city centres, to protect them from military attacks, seismic activity and other natural hazards, according to a new academic study. The recommendations come from a paper written by Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) senior fellow Alvin Chew. Academy of Engineering Singapore fellow and International Society for Rock Mechanics and Engineering (ISRM) fellow Zhou Yingxin co-authored the paper.”
4 comments:
Hi Pete,
I really do think that South Korea will have a working naval SMR within a decade, they already have a land based prototype that will go online this year.
https://armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2024/south-korea-to-build-testing-facility-for-nuclear-submarine-reactors-by-next-year
20% enrichment is considered non-weapons grade, which could mean that these SMR modules could be exportable, especially for large ship propulsion.
https://www.nknews.org/2024/08/seoul-developing-small-modular-reactor-possible-stepping-stone-to-nuke-sub/
With the very likely delay in Australia getting any SSN's before 2040, an viable alternative could be to do a partnership with Canada on SSKs, perhaps 6 boats for the RAN, so if Australia chooses the KSS-III batch 3 as a non nuclear boat, they could all be delivered within ten years, then MLU'ed with an SMR module later.
Hi Shawn at 3/26/2025 3:02 AM
It is US Admiral Paparo, appointed head of Indo-Pacific Command on May 3, 2024, who broached the possibility of Nuclear-Powered Submarines for South Korea. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Paparo
https://govconexec.com/2024/07/indopacom-chief-broaches-possibility-of-nuclear-powered-submarines-in-skorea/
https://www.nknews.org/2024/07/seoul-could-acquire-nuke-submarine-if-needed-to-deter-north-korea-us-commander/
and
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2025/03/113_378635.html
Here Paparo commented on a US-SK Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) saying "We're equal partners with South Korea, and in the spirit of (the) Washington (Declaration), we've established a Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) and as equal partners, at very high levels of government and as strategic partners," he said. "Through the NCG, we're in a constant dialogue at very high levels of secrecy to find a strategic way ahead to deal with the issue." This might even mean future US assistance to SK with reactor design.
As US ally Australia (under AUKUS) has been permitted by the US to use a full-blown HEU reactor US ally SK may be permitted the same privilege. So there may be no need for SK to use LEU or SMR.
On SSK's for Australia unfortunately Build At Osborne South Australia (taking 15 years) has been a domestic political constant which has defeated build elsewhere sense, cost arguments or efficiency. Both sides of Aus politics totally support this self defeating tradition.
Cheers Pete
I think it’s a little too late for US to block the reactors. They gave permission. Taking it away doesn’t mean much if it’s only IP. UK already has this IP. UK could as they are manufactured in UK (& by a British company). If the reactors require US made parts - different story. RR is already expanding the factory to handle this at considerable expense. If US wants to pull out of the deal altogether, they can, but UK & Australia don’t actually need US past that original permission they already have. It would mean design changes but not the end of the world.
Hi Anonymous at 5/02/2025 9:40 AM
Trump (and VP Vance) renege often on agreements with allies - reactors would be a small breach compared to Ukraine and it seems NATO - and we all know about US changeability on tariff victims/"trade partners".
No, the UK is hamstrung by none re-export agreements on US sensitive military technology - which the US could change its mind on - hence blocking SSN-AUKUSs for Australia.
RR relies on US sub-reactor technology. Politically the UK would not wish to endanger still needed US assistance with PW3 and future PW4.
Pete
Post a Comment