I publish on subs, other military/naval, nuclear weapons & political issues. Aussie sub changes are slow: talk since 2009 rather than actual new subs. The Collins LOTE 2028-2040 might help Australia's sub availability temporarily. UUVs help. POTUS 2031 may cancel AUKUS Virginia offer due to USN advice it needs all its SSNs through to the 2040s to face China & Russia. US has sacrificed Virginia production pace in favour of Columbia SSBN production. Shawn C is an excellent contributor.
The US Government is giving production of Columbia SSBNs priority over AUKUS Virginia commitments.
Rather than producing 2.33 Virginias per year to meet AUKUS commitments, the US Government is producing only 1.1 to 1.2 (page 56 reference below) Virginias per year.
This is in order to permit "top priority" (page 50) to be given to 1 Columbia class SSBN launch per year.
"One COLUMBIA Class SSBN represents approximately 2.5 [Virginia class] VACL SSNs in terms of build resources (manning) and tonnage." (page 62)
The reference is the US Congressional Research Service's Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and AUKUS Submarine (Pillar 1) Project: Background and Issues for CongressofFebruary 11, 2025 at https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
"Thanks Pete. As an engineer I have zero confidence in the USA
turning this [the USN's SSN shortage] around, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge. Biden
never once increased the USN budgeted number of Virginias in the three budgets
he delivered after AUKUS [in 2022, 2023 and 2024). Trump may not either.
Yet this problem extends beyond budgets. In many sectors if the government
workforce is inadequate they can hire workers from the private sector. Not
shipbuilding. [Firstly] The USA has declined as a shipbuilding power to the point it
makes virtually no ships except for government (mostly naval) contracts. There
are no private sector workers with the high level welding skills needed for sub
hulls to hire in. [Major submarine builders] GDEB and HII must either hire and train more young workers,
or they will not expand production.
This leads to the second problem - lack of attraction to young workers. Despite
the high prices they charge the USN, US shipyards are low payers. This is
especially problematic for sub builders, who need the highest skills. Why would
a top welder join a shipyard when the pay for those skills is far higher in the
oil and gas industry?
The final problem is that internal engineering skills have declined within USN,
ever since they cut back the old internal design bureau, BuShips. In making
structural savings, the USN kept the bean counters but cut the engineers and
scientists. So now they know they have a technical problem, but not how to fix
it.
More money won't fix this problem, whether from Australian or
US taxpayers. When supply is fixed and demand goes up, the price goes up. That
is what is happening - inflation of USN SSN costs, but no increase in output."
Israel argued 10 days ago that without US heavy bunker buster GBU-57
assistance Israel would have no alternative but to use low-to-intermediate yield nuclear bombs against Iran's deep dug nuclear
enrichment sites at Fordow and Natanz.
The B61-11s are heavier, with a hardened casing, than average
324kg B61s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb as the B61-11s need to penetrate some earth, rock or concrete
before exploding.
Targets under Tehran have not been hit -
yet - by US aircraft. Although Israeli aircraft have been hitting targets in Tehran for several days.
While the focus of Israeli and now US bombing may be Uranium enrichment and highly enriched uranium (HEU) storage, Plutonium also presents an explosive threat used in nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Nuclear_fission
The danger of the Israeli and US air forces
bombing Plutonium production reactors in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, is the
radioactive dust clouds that will rain down on Tehran and on the broader
MidEast region. A similar ruptured reactor, radioactive dust, dispersal
tragedy, occurred in the European region during and after the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.
The Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC)
brings together a number of Iranian nuclear research facilities, including...plutonium separation[109][110] and
purification,[108][111] uranium
conversion,[112]laser
enrichment, and polonium production.[113]
These activities, many of which have
direct applications in nuclear weapons development, have drawn international
scrutiny, particularly due to Iran’s failure to disclose them fully to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[112] The
presence of advanced research infrastructure within the TNRC has further raised
concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions, as the facility’s capabilities extend
beyond civilian applications and into sensitive areas relevant to weapons
proliferation.[108]
Tehran Research Reactor
The Tehran Research Reactor
(TRR)...was primarily designated for medical isotope production, its
capability to operate with highly enriched uranium (HEU) raised concerns about
its possible military applications.[114] The
facility’s ability to produce materials relevant to nuclear weapons development
made it a subject of international scrutiny and regulatory measures within the
framework of the nuclear agreement.[114]
The reactor was supplied by the
United States under the Atoms
for Peace program...
After the Iranian Revolution, the United States cut off
the supply of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel for the TRR, which forced the
reactor to be shut down for a number of years.[118][119] Due
to the nuclear proliferation concerns caused by the use of HEUs and following
Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) Programs, Iran signed
agreements with Argentina's National Atomic Energy Commission to
convert the TRR from highly enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium, and to supply the
low-enriched uranium to Iran in 1987–88. TRR core was converted to use Low
Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuels in 1993.[120]
On the other hand, during the same
time period, between 1988 and 1993, Iran conducted undeclared experiments in
uranium reprocessing at the TRR, and between 1991-1993 separated approximately
100 milligrams of plutonium, an amount 500 times higher than the 200 micrograms
which it declared.[112] Additionally,
Iran attempted to extract the Polonium-210 isotope by irradiating two bismuth
targets, which together with beryllium serves as a neutron initiator in a
number of nuclear weapon designs.[121][108] Although
Iran stated that these actions were experiments for the feasibility of
radioisotope thermoelectric generator production, the IAEA expressed doubt
regarding Iran's declared intentions.[121][108]
Fuel elements of TRR are now
plate-type U3O8-Al with approximately 20% enrichment.[122] In
February 2012, Iran loaded the first domestically produced fuel element into
the Tehran Research Reactor.[123]...." Ends
The article bellow follows my most recent June 16, 2025, article Israel May Coerce US Bomber Involvement in War Against Iran, at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2025/06/israel-may-coerce-us-bomber-involvement.html. I suspect Israel might have advised the US that the only option open to Israel was the unviable use of Israeli nuclear weapons to destroy the most deeply dug Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel and the US are most probably in agreement it is far preferable to use US-only heavy conventional high explosive bunker buster bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP#Development.
Possible targets of these US bombs are very deeply dug Uranium enrichment sites under the Iranian
cities of Tehran, Natanz and Fordow (see 3:40 into the video above and map below). Those sites might
also have stores of almost bomb grade highly enriched Uranium (HEU).
Tehran also has a "research reactor" which may be to produce nuclear explosive Plutonium. If this reactor were bombed it could spread radiation over Tehran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Nuclear_fission All this puts Tehran at risk – one reason why Trump is advising “evacuate Tehran”.
"Satellite imagery and reports suggested that some above-ground sites at Fordow and Natanz were damaged [by the Israeli airstrikes last week] but the subterranean facilities that house centrifuges and enriched uranium were not breached."
Because Israel has no heavy bomber aircraft to carry 10+ tonne bunker buster bombs against deep dug Iranian 60+% highly enriched Uranium (HEU) and other targets Israel may coerce the US into deploying USAF B2s against those targets. US B2s are the only heavy bombers equipped, at short notice, to carry the 14 tonne freefall bunker buster GBU-57 bomb [1].
Of Western countries only the US has heavy bombers. Israeli F-35Is would be limited to carrying a 2,000kg GBU-28 bunker buster bomb internally (in full stealth mode) or 2 x GBU-28s externally (in less stealthy mode) [2].
Israel will argue that without US GBU-57 assistance Israel will have no alternative but to use the "unthinkable" against Iran. Unthinkable would be Israeli use of a low-to-intermediate yield nuclear bomb similar to the US's Mod 11 B61 freefall nuclear bunker buster bomb [3].
Here and below see the video "B2 Bomber Iran Airstrikes Strategy Explained" dated April
2025. Note the Israeli air force has already destroyed many/most(?) Iranian air defences.
This concerns the 408.6kg of
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) enriched up to 60% Uranium 235, reported
by the IAEA in the Al Jazeera article above.
A further small non-linear Iranian
enrichment effort would bring the 60% HEU up to 95% optimal bomb grade.
About 40kg of 95% HEU is enough to
produce a Hiroshima sized bomb atomic bomb. This would give Iran enough for 10
bombs. Israeli intelligence calculates 9.
Here and below is an 8 month old account of Israel's illegal nuclear weapons development and 13:10 into the video, possible South African-Israeli nuclear weapons cooperation.
The AUKUS Review announced June 11, 2025 is
likely to produce an ambiguous finding leaning on Australia to increase its non-refundable
AUKUS payments (currently A$5 Billion) to the US. The 30 day Review is being led
by AUKUS Virginia sceptic US Defense Under Secretary for Policy Elbridge Colby.
The overall America First objective of the Review
is to force Australia to pay more to America's military-industrial-political
complex. A secondary objective is to force an agreement (overt or secret) out
of Australia to make available any AUKUS Virginias for US objectives, like defending
Taiwan.
America is pressuring Australia to raise our
Defense Budget up from 2% to 3.5% GDP to pay more for AUKUS, more for other US
built weapons, and more for Australian weapons built under expensive US licenses.
The shortage of SSNs for the US Navy, leaving no Virginias to spare for Australia, continues. No matter how many $Billions the US Government throws at the problem, SSN production is not increasing, nor SSN availability improving. US website AOL carries
the Fox News article, of June 11, 2025, below. Within the article text see:
"The [US] Navy currently operates under 50 attack submarines, well below the long-term requirement of 66 boats, as outlined by recent Navy force structure assessments."
"Top House Democrat grills Hegseth on submarine spending plans: 'Give us the details'
Morgan Phillips
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a heated House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday over years-long lags in the nation’s shipbuilding capacity.
The top Appropriations Democrat accused the Defense Department (DOD) of failing to present a clear, transparent plan to ramp up production at a time when China’s shipbuilding capabilities are estimated to be 230 times greater than the U.S.’s. She said the Biden administration had been similarly opaque.
DeLauro zeroed in on what she characterized as a troubling shortfall between the Navy’s current production capacity and future strategic needs.
"Do you know where our submarine production currently stands and whether current production is sufficient to bridge the gap between current fleet size and projected need?" she asked.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [different bio - photo above] confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a heated House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday [June 10, 2025] over years-long lags in the nation’s shipbuilding capacity.
"There is a gap," Hegseth admitted, "but we believe we are closing it."
But DeLauro wasn’t satisfied, demanding detailed data to back up that claim.
"We do not have any information or data that can substantiate what you’re saying," she shot back. "Give us the details."
"We've had difficulty with the prior administration, and I don't mind calling them out. What is your plan for the future?"
Asked what the status is of the department’s investment in submarine programs, Hegseth boasted of a 14% increase in funding in the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines and a "substantial increase" in the Virginia-class fast-attack submarines as well.
But the congresswoman raised concerns about reports that the Pentagon plans to shift $3.1 billion in funding for the Columbia-class submarine program from FY2026 to FY2027 and FY2028.
"This creates a serious problem for industry in the short term and hampers shipbuilders’ ability to reach an adequate production rate," DeLauro warned. "Have you been in contact with Electric Boat or Huntington Ingalls about your plans?"
Hegseth pushed back, saying top Pentagon officials were in regular communication with shipyards.
"Almost every day," he said. "We’re actively engaged… to make sure their needs are being met and their shortfalls are being addressed so we can close that gap in real time."
DeLauro pointed to a missed deadline for placing key submarine contracts authorized under the December continuing resolution. Congress had approved $5.7 billion for two Block IV and oneBlock V Virginia-class submarines, with the understanding that contracts would be in place by February 2025. The Defense Department did not finalize the contracts until April 30.
"We have made a serious investment," DeLauro said. "Now we want to know where that is going and what your plan is."
When pressed for specifics, Hegseth thanked the committee for its flexibility and acknowledged prior mismanagement under previous administrations. But DeLauro cut him off.
"I want your plan," she said. "Can we get that in writing and on paper? Because we don’t have anything today. We have zip, nada."
Hegseth promised to provide the committee with written details of the department’s submarine production plan.
"We have the details, and we will provide them," he said.
DeLauro insisted she wanted the information before the committee's markup later the same day.
The U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding capacity has been on the decline since the Cold War. In the 1980s, the U.S. aimed for a 600-ship fleet; today, it struggles to maintain 300 operational vessels.
The [US] Navy currently operates under 50 attack submarines, well below the long-term requirement of 66 boats, as outlined by recent Navy force structure assessments.
Shipyards like Electric Boat (General Dynamics) in Connecticut and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Virginia and Mississippi are the primary builders of nuclear submarines—but both are operating near maximum capacity and face major workforce and supply chain challenges.
Shipbuilders report significant difficulties in hiring, training and retaining welders, pipefitters, engineers and designers. Shipbuilding’s highly specialized supply chain was hit especially hard by the Covid-19 pandemic and has been slow to recover.
Other than "up to" 12 SSN-AUKUS and a heroically ambitious 1 SSN every 18 months drumbeat, yesterday's UK SSN-AUKUS announcement [1a] is no change from the UK's 2021 SSN-AUKUS announcement. "Up to" 12 leaves scope for reduction to 7. In 2021 [2] there was no actual number put on how many SSN-AUKUS subs would be producedfor the UK Royal Navy and there is still no firm number. [1b]
Yesterday's announcement was a rather vacuous banner headline for the UK government's release of the broader Strategic Defence Review package.It was all the more vacuous because SSN-AUKUS production may end more than 20 years after the term of the current UK government ends.
The 12 SSN-AUKUS announcement is also heroic because SSN production [3] will compete for manpower, BAE corporate attention and space with Dreadnought SSBN production. [4] This competition will be most intense throughout the 2030s as it will make the Devonshire Dock Hall [5] rather crowded in the UK's Barrow-in-Furness submarine shipyard.
Also it is BAE, the UK's only submarine builder, that must handle this major spike in UK submarine production. BAE's cost overruns and delays record was not glowing producing just one class at one time, the Astute-class. [6].
Can the UK government afford to buy 2 classes of nuclear subs in the 2030s-2040s? That being 4 new SSBNs and the new class of SSN-AUKUSs.
Is the "up to 12" statement connected to the shortfall of SSNs for the USN? Up to 12 UK SSNs in the RN could reduce the negative impact of too few US SSNs for missions in the Arctic, Atlantic, Mediterranean and seas around North Africa-Middle East.
Judging by public sources and Fleet Base West's Indian Ocean positioning
Australia's SSKs rarely visit NZ or South West Pacific islands. Further north of the Sydney base may be more likely.
Due to differing SSK vs SSN electrical fitouts, differing balance/buoyancies and in fact
far differing internal arrangements retrofitting even a small reactor into an
operational SSK has never occurred, to my knowledge. I think a French Navy non-operational, Daphne-class SSK was used as a reactor testbed (?) in the 1960s-1970s prior to the launch of the first Rubis class SSN in 1979. https://www.lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdfpage 56 onwards, may provide clues.
Retrofitting an intentionally small, hence low power, small modular reactor
(SMR) makes little sense particularly relying on an SMR with molten salt
coolant.
The US experimented with an earlier USS Seawolf (SSN-575) (built in the 1950s)
being the only US submarine built with a sodium-cooled reactor. That Seawolf's
S2G reactor was a liquid metal (sodium) cooled, beryllium-moderated nuclear
reactor. The Seawolf's sodium-cooled reactor faced challenges, including leaks
in the steam generators and performance issues. Its was later replaced with a
standard PWR. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)#Comparison_to_Nautilus
The USSR also attempted molten salt in its Alfa-class SSNs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine#Propulsionwith negative results. In emergency shut
downs molten salt reactors freeze - preventing restarts - requiring reactor
replacements. Pier side heating was essential.
I regrettably reckon there is little SSK to SSN retrofit or alternative reactor
coolant flexibility. Otherwise someone would have tried retrofitting SSK to
SSN.