June 26, 2025

US Gov Giving Columbia Subs Priority Over AUKUS Commitment

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 Congress of February 11, 2025 at https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf

Scott on USN's SSN Shortage "money won't fix this problem"

Scott, on June 20, 2025, provided the excellent comments below :

"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?

[See John Grady's USNI March 11, 2025 article "Increasing wages for shipyard workers is the top challenge when attracting and retaining everyone from pipefitters to naval architects, a naval analyst told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday" at https://news.usni.org/2025/03/11/pay-number-one-issue-in-growing-u-s-shipbuilding-workforce-panel-tells-hasc ]

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."

June 24, 2025

Confirmed: Israel Coerced the US into Bombing Iran

Further to my post of June 16, 2025 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2025/06/israel-may-coerce-us-bomber-involvement.html
my sources confirm Israel coerced the US into bombing Iran.

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 light, around 600kg, air dropped Israeli nuclear bombs in question are similar to the US's 540kg B61-11 free fall nuclear bunker buster bombs. See The B61 family of nuclear bombs by Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris Pages 79-84  Published online: Nov 27, 2015 at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340214531546#d1e111

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.

June 22, 2025

Nuclear Site Targets in TEHRAN for Israeli & US Air Forces: Plutonium.

Now that my prediction in my article of June 19, 2025
"Likely Targets of US B2 bombers: Tehran, Natanz & Fordow"

at 
https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2025/06/likely-targets-of-us-b2-bombers-tehran.html

has become fact, on June 22, 2025.

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

Nuclear reactor and Plutonium reprocessing sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing around Iran may now be on Israeli and US target lists. 

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.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Tehran_Nuclear_Research_Center :

"Tehran Nuclear Research Center

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

June 19, 2025

Likely Targets of US B2 bombers: Tehran, Natanz & Fordow

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 TehranNatanz 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”.

US B-2 heavy stealth bombers, forward based at Diego Garcia (central Indian Ocean) would carry out these heavy bombing missions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit#2000s



Tehran, Natanz
and Fordow aka Fordo (Map courtesy BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720 )
---

Here is information - at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordow_Fuel_Enrichment_Plant#2025_Israeli_airstrikes  - on Natanz and Fordow

"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."

For more information see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran.

June 16, 2025

Israel May Coerce US Bomber Involvement in War Against Iran

In response to Shawn's June 13, 2025 comment:

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] .

[1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP#Development

[2]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)

[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb


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.

June 13, 2025

Nuclear Weaponless Iran Can Be Bombed By Israeli Nuclear Weapons at Will

A bit of fission bomb math regarding https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/31/iran-increases-stockpile-of-enriched-uranium-by-50-percent-iaea-says

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.

10 are not enough to match Israel’s 100 to 200 much more powerful H bombshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Israel

Iran’s nemesis, Saudi Arabia, is also believed to have made a deal to place Pakistani nuclear warheads on the Saudi’s Chinese provided long range missiles https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2012/08/saudi-ballistic-missiles-nuclear.html

So Iran has a long way to go to quietly build up its nuclear arsenal to match potential Israeli and Saudi regional nuclear threats.

So Iran having no equivalent right to defend itself can be bombed at will.

Israel, Pakistan and India have more severely breached their international nuclear weapon non-proliferation obligations than Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

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.

June 12, 2025

US AUKUS Review's Message: Increase Australian Money for US

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.

After all this the US Navy has a long-term unfixable Virginia-class submarine shortage - meaning Australia is highly unlikely to ever receive Virginias.

See Submarine Matters' March 10, 2025 article with references to Colby’s opposition to Virginias for Australia under AUKUS. 

The Trump Administration's review of Biden's AUKUS initiative also features in a useful Australian SkyNews article of June 12, 2025.

Also interesting is the broader alliance damage commentary here and below by the UK's Mallen Baker, uploaded June 13, 2025.

 

June 11, 2025

USN's SSN Shortage: Hegseth Policy Vacuum

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."

Article string is https://www.aol.com/news/top-house-democrat-grills-hegseth-184652637.html


"Top House Democrat grills Hegseth on submarine spending plans: 'Give us the details'

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.





Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut and former chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, speaks during a news conference
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [different biophoto 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 one Block 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.

[See page 15 here https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf of “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 24, 2024”.]

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.

Original [Fox News] article source: Top House Democrat grills Hegseth on submarine spending plans: 'Give us the details' "

June 3, 2025

UK's Vacuous "UP TO" 12 SSN-AUKUS Announcement

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 produced for 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.


[1b] Full 144 page text https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf see page 6: "Through the AUKUS programme, this will allow us to grow our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to up to 12." 

Pete Comment: 
So up to 12 could turn out to be just 7 and even then 7 could be a rolling combination of Astutes and SSN-AUKUS.

June 2, 2025

Retrofitting Reactors into SSKs Unlikely: Molten Salt Out

Hi Shawn re your June 1, 2025 comment:

South Korea's (SK's) KSS-III Batch III might turn out to be nuclear powered - a true SSBN or SSN-SSBN hybrid. Various countries, like France with its K-15 reactor could help SK. SK has also experimented and built reactors for decades and considered responses to Japan's Mutsu nuclear powered ship https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/06/japanese-nuclear-propulsion-1-mutsu.html

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.pdf page 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#Propulsion with 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.

Too little is known about the possible Wuhan mini-SSN to draw conclusions.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/subsurface-setbacks-china-s-submarine-accident-in-wuhan

Cheers Pete