Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[Delta204]

I think it's best to temper any expectations on future acquisitions. Submarines are not part of the NSS so we can pretty much rule out building our own - even if we partnered with another country. We also have to understand that the primary capital assets of the RCN will remain the CSC - the govt. has committed a lot of money and has insisted on 15 warships (for good reason IMO). So with our limited defense budget you can pretty much rule out any large submarine fleet of 8-12; it will just be too much. Best case scenario we buy another 4-6 SSK's from an ally.

Interesting discussion on the Australian comparable but there are important distinctions; RCN wants the capability that submarines bring but doesn't require the same persistence or tempo that the RAN is looking to get from its fleet of 12. RAN has committed to having subs in critical waters at all times, especially during hostilities. The same isn't necessarily true for the RCN.

What's interesting is that the last time RCN talked about SSN's in the late 80's the US DoD apparently made it clear that this would be unwelcomed... the inference being that USN SSN's were already doing a good enough job protecting north / arctic waters and the introduction of RCN SSN's would require the USN to presumably disclose more of their activity which could lead to unwelcomed attention by politicians and public alike. Since then I really believe that our political leaders have decided that turning a "blind eye" towards USN activity in the north was a better option both politically and economically than investing in our own SSN.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think it's best to temper any expectations on future acquisitions. Submarines are not part of the NSS so we can pretty much rule out building our own - even if we partnered with another country. We also have to understand that the primary capital assets of the RCN will remain the CSC - the govt. has committed a lot of money and has insisted on 15 warships (for good reason IMO). So with our limited defense budget you can pretty much rule out any large submarine fleet of 8-12; it will just be too much. Best case scenario we buy another 4-6 SSK's from an ally.

Interesting discussion on the Australian comparable but there are important distinctions; RCN wants the capability that submarines bring but doesn't require the same persistence or tempo that the RAN is looking to get from its fleet of 12. RAN has committed to having subs in critical waters at all times, especially during hostilities. The same isn't necessarily true for the RCN.

What's interesting is that the last time RCN talked about SSN's in the late 80's the US DoD apparently made it clear that this would be unwelcomed... the inference being that USN SSN's were already doing a good enough job protecting north / arctic waters and the introduction of RCN SSN's would require the USN to presumably disclose more of their activity which could lead to unwelcomed attention by politicians and public alike. Since then I really believe that our political leaders have decided that turning a "blind eye" towards USN activity in the north was a better option both politically and economically than investing in our own SSN.

You have a resurgent Russia on your doorstep with a large submarine force, plus China is showing undue interest in the Arctic claiming that it is an Arctic nation by proximity. The best ASW system is a sub, and maybe 8 - 12 subs are a few subs to many, but that is for the government of the day to decide as they evaluate the geostrategic situation at the time. Whether they decide to devote sufficient resources to defence is an entirely different matter and based on history, I don't hold out much hope.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

You have a resurgent Russia on your doorstep with a large submarine force, plus China is showing undue interest in the Arctic claiming that it is an Arctic nation by proximity. The best ASW system is a sub, and maybe 8 - 12 subs are a few subs to many, but that is for the government of the day to decide as they evaluate the geostrategic situation at the time. Whether they decide to devote sufficient resources to defence is an entirely different matter and based on history, I don't hold out much hope.

To all....WRT building submarine replacements for our Victoria class, I agree with some points, but disagree with others. In my opinion (IMO), if Canada is to stay in the submarine game (and IMV it must), then the first thing that must happen is a "fresh" look at the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) to include building of future modern submarines, either SSKs or SSNs. Whatever submarine fleet is built, they must be built in Canada, with foreign expertise. This has been a "bed-rock" Canadian policy for eons, and will not change for any future vessel. The CSC Type 26 Frigates and Protecteur class JSS are prime examples. When Canada wanted to acquire the British Trafalgar class SSNs, an agreement with the US/UK prevented any nuclear technology from being transferred to any other country, including NATO partners. Yes, the French Suffern Barracuda class SSN, would certainly be an option for Canada, but let's not confine ourselves with that. Japan has a large ocean-going Soyus class SSK that may be suitable with enhanced Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology if the hull & sail were strengthened for enhanced under-ice operations. Australia has been in "discussions" with DNCS to possibly make some follow-on Block 1A boats nuclear. As JohnFedup has said, Canada does have a nuclear industry. Could a Canadian Hybrid submarine with "beefed-up" (power) Canadian "Slo-powke" reactors with enhanced LIBs be possible? Only time will tell. Time we may not have. Something to look at but very expensive to go it alone. Money is definitely a factor for any modern Canadian sub fleet, however, if we were to increase defence spending to at least 2% of GDP (as Canada has promised NATO by 2024), it would be possible to build up to 12 SSKs/SSNs (6 per coast-with two of those per coast in various stages of maintenance). Yes, going to SSNs is abhorrently expensive. Attack SSNs are not tied directly with nuclear weapons. The British Astute class and US Virginia class are prime examples. A large "Canada" class conventional SSK (4-5000 tons minimum), with advanced LIB technology along with stronger re-enforced hulls is possible to build in Canada. The biggest concern is with infrastructure to be built and more submariners to fill these boats ($$). A large ocean-going SSK/SSN fleet to patrol our three oceans, will be essential to Canadian sovereignty. We do not want to be a "protectorate" to any country. The USN already discloses to Canada their SSN activities through the NATO Water Space Management (WSM) system. These are my thoughts and opinions only. Cheers!

 

[Delta204]

I completely agree with your point but I think that the public discussion (the very little there is in Canada) on this matter sometimes goes off track. Many commentators lament the lack of capability our navy has in the arctic as an example - and this is often used as a justification for increased submarine numbers and capability. However, Canadian waters (including the arctic) are already defended against Russian and Chinese undersea threats by the most powerful submarine force in the world - the USN. That is why there is very little appetite by Canadian politicians to invest the political and economic capital required to build a large sub fleet. I just want people to realize how big of a challenge this would be - not just the cost. There would be significant political hurdles to overcome as well - both domestic and foreign.

You have a resurgent Russia on your doorstep with a large submarine force, plus China is showing undue interest in the Arctic claiming that it is an Arctic nation by proximity. The best ASW system is a sub, and maybe 8 - 12 subs are a few subs to many, but that is for the government of the day to decide as they evaluate the geostrategic situation at the time. Whether they decide to devote sufficient resources to defence is an entirely different matter and based on history, I don't hold out much hope.

 

[John Fedup]

The only way Canada can justify building domestically is for 8-10 boats. Can’t see any partner nation being bothered for a smaller number given Canada’s military procurement clusters. There is also the political will needed to go beyond 4 boats which, IMHO, probably is needed for an eventual ice free Arctic.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

I completely agree with your point but I think that the public discussion (the very little there is in Canada) on this matter sometimes goes off track. Many commentators lament the lack of capability our navy has in the arctic as an example - and this is often used as a justification for increased submarine numbers and capability. However, Canadian waters (including the arctic) are already defended against Russian and Chinese undersea threats by the most powerful submarine force in the world - the USN. That is why there is very little appetite by Canadian politicians to invest the political and economic capital required to build a large sub fleet. I just want people to realize how big of a challenge this would be - not just the cost. There would be significant political hurdles to overcome as well - both domestic and foreign.

Hi Delta 24! Good to see some constructive ideas out there. I hope you aren't saying that all Canadian waters are, or should, be protected by the US? How would you feel if you woke up one morning to find that a US SSN had popped up near CFB Alert in Canadian waters unannounced and had fired a Tomahawk Cruise Missile at a Soviet or Chinese vessel transiting Canadian waters (with permission from Ottawa) if Ottawa didn't know that the SSN was there in the first place. A good reason to have a Canadian submarine up there. IMO this is exactly why we need an increased presence in all of our three oceans. Both Halifax and Esquimalt would each have four operational SSKs/SSNs available at any one time (the other two in various stages of short or long maintenance). Most likely, there would be at least one boat deployed in the Pacific/Atlantic/Mediterranian Sea on "Special Ops", one deployed with each CSC TG (East & West) and one doing regular patrols, say in the Arctic. The other boat would be on "hot standby" should the need arise to replace one of the deployed boats or if there were a requirement for Fishery Patrol. That's also why we have a WSM system. To let other "friendlies" know we are there and give others pause. Yes 12 boats seems to be a lot, but when you break it down, probably just about right. Yes it would be a challenge, but IMO, Canada is up it.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

The only way Canada can justify building domestically is for 8-10 boats. Can’t see any partner nation being bothered for a smaller number given Canada’s military procurement clusters. There is also the political will needed to go beyond 4 boats which, IMHO, probably is needed for an eventual ice free Arctic.

Hi JohnFedup. Totally agree. Canada, however, like Australia would never allow these boats to be built in any country but their own. Cheers!

 

[John Fedup]

Canada up for 12 boats....given junior’s multi-billion dollar poorly scrutinized COVID 19 give away, I foresee little hope for a properly funded sub renewal. In fact, 15 CSC ships could well be reduced. Then there is the 88 new fighters....l can already hear excuses as to why this number has to be smaller. The 250 billion deficit for this year will make defence cuts very easy for junior.

 

[Delta204]

Not saying I personally agree with what I wrote but it is the current reality... and will likely continue to be unless there is a drastic change in defense policy and budget. I'm trying to frame this discussion within these restrictions as the moderators here frown on "fantasy" speculation.

What you've highlighted in your (maybe a bit extreme) example is the tension that Canadian politicians have had to delicately balance over the years and nobody seems eager to have these discussions on whether or not its the best way to do things. BMD is another example - Canada's rejection years ago to participate is purely political and does not change much on how the US would employ its BMD systems. Like it or not at the end of the day the US has the final say on North American defense - even if we buy a fleet of 12 submarines nothing would change in your scenario IMO.

Also, normal operational tempo for subs is around 20% of fleet I believe based on other modern navies. So your numbers are a bit optimistic; most navies can surge to about 75% during crises if needed but this wouldn't be the norm.

Hi Delta 24! Good to see some constructive ideas out there. I hope you aren't saying that all Canadian waters are, or should, be protected by the US? How would you feel if you woke up one morning to find that a US SSN had popped up near CFB Alert in Canadian waters unannounced and had fired a Tomahawk Cruise Missile at a Soviet or Chinese vessel transiting Canadian waters (with permission from Ottawa) if Ottawa didn't know that the SSN was there in the first place. A good reason to have a Canadian submarine up there. IMO this is exactly why we need an increased presence in all of our three oceans. Both Halifax and Esquimalt would each have four operational SSKs/SSNs available at any one time (the other two in various stages of short or long maintenance). Most likely, there would be at least one boat deployed in the Pacific/Atlantic/Mediterranian Sea on "Special Ops", one deployed with each CSC TG (East & West) and one doing regular patrols, say in the Arctic. The other boat would be on "hot standby" should the need arise to replace one of the deployed boats or if there were a requirement for Fishery Patrol. That's also why we have a WSM system. To let other "friendlies" know we are there and give others pause. Yes 12 boats seems to be a lot, but when you break it down, probably just about right. Yes it would be a challenge, but IMO, Canada is up it.

 

[Calculus]

...and its nuclear industry is a heck of a lot weaker than it was even a decade ago.

That statement is factually incorrect. See here for an overview of the Canadian nuclear industry: Canada 2019

Canada is among a select few countries that controls the entire supply chain, from the mining and enrichment of the uranium, to the manufacture of the reactors themselves. There is also a rich history of development of unique reactor designs (see ZEEP, NRX, NRU, PTR, Maple, Slowpoke, and ZED-2), and is now engaged quite heavily in the development of SMRs. In fact, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is the world leader in the review and approval of reactor designs, and many foreign SMR engineering firms have their designs in front of the the CNSC for review. (NuScale Submits Phase 1 and 2 Combined Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and More SMR vendor design reviews for CNSC - World Nuclear News and GE Hitachi Progresses Vendor Design Review in Canada for BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor | GE Newsroom)

More on CNSC: Small modular reactors - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratory in Chalk River (about 2 hours up the road from my home) is planning to build and test an SMR by 2026, and is in the process of upgrading their entire facility to support "advanced" nuclear technologies: Revitalization of the Chalk River Laboratories | Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Support is coming from government as well, with a program in place to advance the design of SMRs in Canada, the road map of which can be seen here: SMR Roadmap | Canadian Small Modular Reactor.

SMRs are a huge area of investment in Canada, and some of the designs actually lend themselves pretty well to naval applications, so the idea of Canada producing an indigenous reactor for a submarine certainly can't be dismissed on capacity or innovation grounds. Cost and politics are the only things restricting the adoption of this technology for military use in Canada.

Small Modular Reactor Technology

CNL provides world-class research capabilities in support of small modular reactor (SMR) technology.

www.cnl.ca

First Canadian SMR licence application submitted

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has received its first licence application for a small modular reactor . The application from Global First Power, with support from Ontario Power Generation and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, supports a proposal to deploy a Micro Modular Reactor plant at...

world-nuclear-news.org

US and Canadian regulators select SMR for joint review

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have selected Terrestrial Energy's Integral Molten Salt Reactor for their first joint technical review of an advanced, non-light water nuclear reactor technology, Terrestrial announced yesterday.;

world-nuclear-news.org

This is a fantastic overview of SMRs:

https://www.cnl.ca/site/media/Parent/CNL_SmModularReactor_Report.pdf

A few of the many private Canadian SMR reactor designers: Home - Terrestrial Energy and Northern Graphite | The Future of North American Graphite Production and Home Page - StarCore Nuclear. And this company, Denedin Energy (About Us), which is developing a nuclear battery (see Slowpoke, and its Naval offshoot, AMPS 1000).

Nuclear energy in Canada is undergoing a renaissance, and is quite healthy. In no way is it weaker than it was a decade ago. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite is the case.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Canada up for 12 boats....given junior’s multi-billion dollar poorly scrutinized COVID 19 give away, I foresee little hope for a properly funded sub renewal. In fact, 15 CSC ships could well be reduced. Then there is the 88 new fighters....l can already hear excuses as to why this number has to be smaller. The 250 billion deficit for this year will make defence cuts very easy for junior.

You could well be right. Let's hope for the best and pray "Junior" isn't that crazy. We'll probably have a GE sometime this year which may solve everything or the country will just blow up!

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

That statement is factually incorrect. See here for an overview of the Canadian nuclear industry: Canada 2019

Canada is among a select few countries that controls the entire supply chain, from the mining and enrichment of the uranium, to the manufacture of the reactors themselves. There is also a rich history of development of unique reactor designs (see ZEEP, NRX, NRU, PTR, Maple, Slowpoke, and ZED-2), and is now engaged quite heavily in the development of SMRs. In fact, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is the world leader in the review and approval of reactor designs, and many foreign SMR engineering firms have their designs in front of the the CNSC for review. (NuScale Submits Phase 1 and 2 Combined Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and More SMR vendor design reviews for CNSC - World Nuclear News and GE Hitachi Progresses Vendor Design Review in Canada for BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor | GE Newsroom)

More on CNSC: Small modular reactors - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratory in Chalk River (about 2 hours up the road from my home) is planning to build and test an SMR by 2026, and is in the process of upgrading their entire facility to support "advanced" nuclear technologies: Revitalization of the Chalk River Laboratories | Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Support is coming from government as well, with a program in place to advance the design of SMRs in Canada, the road map of which can be seen here: SMR Roadmap | Canadian Small Modular Reactor.

SMRs are a huge area of investment in Canada, and some of the designs actually lend themselves pretty well to naval applications, so the idea of Canada producing an indigenous reactor for a submarine certainly can't be dismissed on capacity or innovation grounds. Cost and politics are the only things restricting the adoption of this technology for military use in Canada.

Small Modular Reactor Technology

CNL provides world-class research capabilities in support of small modular reactor (SMR) technology.

www.cnl.ca

First Canadian SMR licence application submitted

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has received its first licence application for a small modular reactor . The application from Global First Power, with support from Ontario Power Generation and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, supports a proposal to deploy a Micro Modular Reactor plant at...

world-nuclear-news.org

US and Canadian regulators select SMR for joint review

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have selected Terrestrial Energy's Integral Molten Salt Reactor for their first joint technical review of an advanced, non-light water nuclear reactor technology, Terrestrial announced yesterday.;

world-nuclear-news.org

This is a fantastic overview of SMRs:

https://www.cnl.ca/site/media/Parent/CNL_SmModularReactor_Report.pdf

A few of the many private Canadian SMR reactor designers: Home - Terrestrial Energy and Northern Graphite | The Future of North American Graphite Production and Home Page - StarCore Nuclear.

Nuclear energy in Canada is undergoing a renaissance, and is quite healthy. In no way is it weaker than it was a decade ago. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite is the case.

Hi Calculus! Yes, agree totally! SMR technology in Canada has been on the move for the past several years now and Canada has been at the fore-front! Perhaps a way can be found soon to increase power O/P large enough and miniaturize the reactor for not just a Hybrid Canadian submarine, but for "other" surface ships as well. The answers for these future subs will have to come from Canadian enterprise. Thanks Calculus for the input!

 

[John Fedup]

That statement is factually incorrect. See here for an overview of the Canadian nuclear industry: Canada 2019

Canada is among a select few countries that controls the entire supply chain, from the mining and enrichment of the uranium, to the manufacture of the reactors themselves. There is also a rich history of development of unique reactor designs (see ZEEP, NRX, NRU, PTR, Maple, Slowpoke, and ZED-2), and is now engaged quite heavily in the development of SMRs. In fact, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is the world leader in the review and approval of reactor designs, and many foreign SMR engineering firms have their designs in front of the the CNSC for review. (NuScale Submits Phase 1 and 2 Combined Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and More SMR vendor design reviews for CNSC - World Nuclear News and GE Hitachi Progresses Vendor Design Review in Canada for BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor | GE Newsroom)

More on CNSC: Small modular reactors - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratory in Chalk River (about 2 hours up the road from my home) is planning to build and test an SMR by 2026, and is in the process of upgrading their entire facility to support "advanced" nuclear technologies: Revitalization of the Chalk River Laboratories | Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Support is coming from government as well, with a program in place to advance the design of SMRs in Canada, the road map of which can be seen here: SMR Roadmap | Canadian Small Modular Reactor.

SMRs are a huge area of investment in Canada, and some of the designs actually lend themselves pretty well to naval applications, so the idea of Canada producing an indigenous reactor for a submarine certainly can't be dismissed on capacity or innovation grounds. Cost and politics are the only things restricting the adoption of this technology for military use in Canada.

Small Modular Reactor Technology

CNL provides world-class research capabilities in support of small modular reactor (SMR) technology.

www.cnl.ca

First Canadian SMR licence application submitted

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has received its first licence application for a small modular reactor . The application from Global First Power, with support from Ontario Power Generation and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, supports a proposal to deploy a Micro Modular Reactor plant at...

world-nuclear-news.org

US and Canadian regulators select SMR for joint review

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have selected Terrestrial Energy's Integral Molten Salt Reactor for their first joint technical review of an advanced, non-light water nuclear reactor technology, Terrestrial announced yesterday.;

world-nuclear-news.org

This is a fantastic overview of SMRs:

https://www.cnl.ca/site/media/Parent/CNL_SmModularReactor_Report.pdf

A few of the many private Canadian SMR reactor designers: Home - Terrestrial Energy and Northern Graphite | The Future of North American Graphite Production and Home Page - StarCore Nuclear. And this company, Denedin Energy (About Us), which is developing a nuclear battery (see Slowpoke, and its Naval offshoot, AMPS 1000).

Nuclear energy in Canada is undergoing a renaissance, and is quite healthy. In no way is it weaker than it was a decade ago. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite is the case.

Don’t want to go too OT here but the outlook for Canadian nuclear industry may take a hit due to COVID as R&D dollars will become scarce. Given China’s recent behaviour, the SNC-Lavlin-China Nuclear Corporation collaboration should be terminated. One small point, the Maple reactor was a dog that was largely the reason for the breakup of AECL. I agree SMR technology could be a game changer and hopefully it may end up powering a future heavy icebreaker If not subs and provide an alternative power source to diesel generators in remote northern locations.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia has been in "discussions" with DNCS to possibly make some follow-on Block 1A boats nuclear.

Sorry David but no, Australia has no plans to operate SSNs, we have no Nuclear Power Industry at all, just one small research Reactor on the entire Continent. This subject has been done to death on the RAN thread and is very much a no go zone on that thread.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Sorry David but no, Australia has no plans to operate SSNs, we have no Nuclear Power Industry at all, just one small research Reactor on the entire Continent. This subject has been done to death on the RAN thread and is very much a no go zone on that thread.

Hi Redlands18. Are you saying that Australia never had discussions with DNCS or France about some follow-on of the 12 Barracuda Blk 1As going nuclear down the road? I would like to see some evidence of that. If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Cheers!

 

[Redlands18]

Hi Redlands18. Are you saying that Australia never had discussions with DNCS or France about some follow-on of the 12 Barracuda Blk 1As going nuclear down the road? I would like to see some evidence of that. If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Cheers!

To the best of my knowledge there has never been any disclosure of any discussion of any talks between the RAN and anyone on Nuclear Power Submarines. The official line in Australia is no SSNs.
Sorry but I can’t produce evidence for something that as far as i am aware off doesn’t exist and cannot find any evidence of it either. I have never seen any evidence anywhere of any talks between the RAN and Naval Group(no longer called DCNS) for follow on Submarines of any type to the 12 currently in Sea 1000 and considering we are talking mid 2050s here that would be highly unlikely. Under the Shipbuilding plan, it is intended that the follow on Subs and Surface combatants will be of a local design. Barracuda Blk 1A is more likely to be an improved design of the Attack from about Boat 6 or 7 then a Boat 13.

 

[spoz]

Redlands is correct. No such discussions have occurred. There is certainly noise coming from a small group of uninvolved people that Australia should consider SSNs but it is not doing so. That does not mean, however, that the RAN might not be keeping abreast of current submarine developments elsewhere in the western world.

 

[Redlands18]

Redlands is correct. No such discussions have occurred. There is certainly noise coming from a small group of uninvolved people that Australia should consider SSNs but it is not doing so. That does not mean, however, that the RAN might not be keeping abreast of current submarine developments elsewhere in the western world.

Thanks for the backup @spoz The RAN would not be doing there job properly if they weren’t watching developments on all Naval projects. Of course publicly the RAN is showing far more interest in Battery developments that is showing a lot of promise to dramatically improve Submarine performance, you may not need a Nuke Reactor by 2060 to stay underwater for 30-40 days, run ISR systems and be able to Sprint at 25kt.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi Redlands18. Are you saying that Australia never had discussions with DNCS or France about some follow-on of the 12 Barracuda Blk 1As going nuclear down the road? I would like to see some evidence of that. If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Cheers!

There are a couple of problems with the above. The first having to do with a request to see evidence of an absence of any such discussion. Essentially the only way to 'prove' it never happened would require access to, and a complete review of, all communications between AusGov/ADF/RAN and France/DCNS.

I would also point out that a Moderator has commented previously about discussing SSN's for the RAN in a post here. In a brief nutshell, given the lack of a domestic nuclear industry in Australia, SSN's just are not viable because Australia currently lacks the personnel, resources and facilities to design, construct, and then maintain and operate SSN's and their requisite nuclear power plants. Australia could develop everything needed in order to do so, but it would require significant effort and resources which in turn would require a will to do so. At this point, trying to keep this pet rock idea going would push this thread into the realms of fantasyland and we have seen, recently, how well that went with ideas on turning the RAN's Arafura-class OPV's into bastardized corvettes.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

There are a couple of problems with the above. The first having to do with a request to see evidence of an absence of any such discussion. Essentially the only way to 'prove' it never happened would require access to, and a complete review of, all communications between AusGov/ADF/RAN and France/DCNS.

I would also point out that a Moderator has commented previously about discussing SSN's for the RAN in a post here. In a brief nutshell, given the lack of a domestic nuclear industry in Australia, SSN's just are not viable because Australia currently lacks the personnel, resources and facilities to design, construct, and then maintain and operate SSN's and their requisite nuclear power plants. Australia could develop everything needed in order to do so, but it would require significant effort and resources which in turn would require a will to do so. At this point, trying to keep this pet rock idea going would once again push this thread into the realms of fantasyland and we have seen, recently, how well that went with ideas on turning the RAN's Arafura-class OPV's into bastardized corvettes.

Get your point. We'll close this topic........for now. Enough said. Cheers!