Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
There is no strong lobby group for nuclear. Opposed by coal, gas, industries. Opposed by renewable industries and most of the left. Australia has a huge amount of energy sources, so nuclear isn't an obvious choice and requires significant investment. Even among the liberals and the nationals there is no strong wing for nuclear power, rather just some individuals that are keen on it. Annoyingly, they are usually from different factions and there is no unity.
Australia has built and operated 3 nuclear reactors. 2 are now offline. OPAL is not a nuclear power station, but a medical and science research reactor, we have experience building small nuclear reactors. It creates a lot of medical isotopes. It is a nuclear reactor, it is operational, its just very small 20MW. ANSTO has been operating reactors for over half a century, it has waste handling agreements. It has operated reactors with highly enriched uranium (HIFAR). OPAL is one of the top three research reactors in the world. It produces (or can) about ~1/3 of the Mo-99 doses globally.
UNSW has a nuclear engineering course. Australia has loads of nuclear(or related) physicists. While we may be a bit low on qualified nuclear engineers, Australia does have a very significant pool of nuclear physics talent, and could scale up nuclear capability fairly quickly. There are several dozen ex-SSN US/UK people advising on projects in Australia. Australia could easily and has previously found it fairly easy to attract nuclear talent globally.
Labor has softened a bit on its nuclear policy. Given we actually now mine a lot of uranium from existing mines (Olympic mine - as essentially a biproduct), there isn't the same resistance as a greenfield uranium mine in Kakadu like we had in the 1980s. But there is no unity, and no one wants a nuclear facility near them (except apparently in Sydney - all the reactors, ANTSO, are in Sydney).
It would take something like a national crisis to bring nuclear to the fore front. War, imminent attack etc.
Throwing this on top of the sub program is not a good idea. See the Canada class. Australia would still not spec French submarines. They would still have US combat system, Australian componentry, US weapons, US/UK sensors.
I can 100% bet that the issues with the submarine project are not related to the diesel engines.
Australia has built and operated 3 nuclear reactors. 2 are now offline. OPAL is not a nuclear power station, but a medical and science research reactor, we have experience building small nuclear reactors. It creates a lot of medical isotopes. It is a nuclear reactor, it is operational, its just very small 20MW. ANSTO has been operating reactors for over half a century, it has waste handling agreements. It has operated reactors with highly enriched uranium (HIFAR). OPAL is one of the top three research reactors in the world. It produces (or can) about ~1/3 of the Mo-99 doses globally.
UNSW has a nuclear engineering course. Australia has loads of nuclear(or related) physicists. While we may be a bit low on qualified nuclear engineers, Australia does have a very significant pool of nuclear physics talent, and could scale up nuclear capability fairly quickly. There are several dozen ex-SSN US/UK people advising on projects in Australia. Australia could easily and has previously found it fairly easy to attract nuclear talent globally.
Labor has softened a bit on its nuclear policy. Given we actually now mine a lot of uranium from existing mines (Olympic mine - as essentially a biproduct), there isn't the same resistance as a greenfield uranium mine in Kakadu like we had in the 1980s. But there is no unity, and no one wants a nuclear facility near them (except apparently in Sydney - all the reactors, ANTSO, are in Sydney).
It would take something like a national crisis to bring nuclear to the fore front. War, imminent attack etc.
Throwing this on top of the sub program is not a good idea. See the Canada class. Australia would still not spec French submarines. They would still have US combat system, Australian componentry, US weapons, US/UK sensors.
I can 100% bet that the issues with the submarine project are not related to the diesel engines.
The first Attack is due to be delivered sometime around 2030. Per the Shipbuilding Strategy, the plan is for a continuous build program with the length of each cycle dependant on the maintenance regime in place; for the Attacks that is something like 24 years so the concept is that the first of the generation after the Attacks will be delivered about 2 years after the last, and 24 years after the first Attack.
ASPI also ran with this article
What would it take for Australia to walk away from the French submarine deal? | The Strategist
Media reports this week have claimed that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has commissioned a Defence Department review into potential alternatives to the Attack-class submarine. That’s prompted a flurry of speculation about whether the government is ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Marcus Hellver's article is more of a question about perception of problems with SEA 1000 and what we could do about it.
Is the PM and government asking questions for a reason?
Again for the public domain we are in the dark as I'd suggest is the author; but yet again this subject keeps getting air ,so for right or wrong some dirt will stick
As has being said on this forum before, Plan A is also our Plan B.
Regards S
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's just subs they don't like, remember the vitriol about the Collins class from News corp? I always thought it was because they were tainted by being 'Beasleys subs', but now it's a French design selected by the government of News corps choosing. Hard to work out unless it as you say, somebodies mate had a business connection with the Japanese.
OPAL is an Argentinean design, & the prime contractor was the Argentinean company INVAP - "undertaking the design, procurement, installation and supervision of the commissioning and performance demonstration of OPAL" - according to the ANSTO website. I think Australia's nuclear reactor design & construction capabilities are far behind Argentina's. How many Australia-designed reactors are in operation around the world?
Sure about that? I'd be interested in how you define top research reactors
As far as producers of medical radioisotopes goes (I know, not the same thing), the HFR reactor at Petten, in the Netherlands, has recently been producing about 30% of the world's medical radioisotopes, & a replacement (PALLAS. Vital - Pallas Reactor) is being built - also INVAP-designed.
According to the US NIH, in 2016 OPAL had 8% of world production capability for Mo-99, which is used in 80% of nuclear medical procedures & was the 6th largest in the world. Petten was biggest, with 23%, & BFR-2 in Belgium 2nd with 21%. 95% of the world output came from 7 reactors - not necessarily in direct proportion to output capacity.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
OT
Canada’s Chalk River reactor produced a significant portion of the world’s Mo-99 for almost 50 years until its closure several years ago. Two replacement reactors were built (Maple) but they were never licensed. Rather than build another design, the government decided on cyclotron expansion. Work at Vancouver’s TRIUMF facility resulted in a cyclotron design capable of producing Tc-99 directly. An added advantage is the ability to produce other medical isotopes near imaging sites. Currently there are 16 cyclotrons and more will come.
Canada’s Chalk River reactor produced a significant portion of the world’s Mo-99 for almost 50 years until its closure several years ago. Two replacement reactors were built (Maple) but they were never licensed. Rather than build another design, the government decided on cyclotron expansion. Work at Vancouver’s TRIUMF facility resulted in a cyclotron design capable of producing Tc-99 directly. An added advantage is the ability to produce other medical isotopes near imaging sites. Currently there are 16 cyclotrons and more will come.
As per senate estimates the yard is being built with the capability to deliver a future submarine every 18 months in required (see attached QoN). Obviously this would affect the continuous shipbuilding plan but if required the government could accelerate and increase the number of submarines in service from ~2034 onwards.
Considering they haven't yet announced how many Collins they are planning to put through LOTE and they are planning on an Attack class every 24 months it would seem Defence/Government don't consider the need for a quicker delivery rate. Though at least they could accelerate if they wanted if the strategic circumstances continued to deteriorate.
Personally I think it is a bit premature to cancel as we are still very early in the overall project. It seems the only delays so far are agreed by Defence as they want the design as mature as possible before starting construction which is the smart thing to do. Also think its stupid to cancel based over % of industrial content as capability is most important and economics should come second. Don't think cancelling and ordering overseas or even changing supplier will increase or change the % level possible.
just my 2 cents.
Takao
The Bunker Group
@Sandhi Yudha, it's been brought to my attention you said powerplant not reactor. I'm sorry, I misread that. You are are 100% correct.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Well, at least Australia has a research reactor.
I think that option left the building ages ago.
It would not surprise me if the new Attack class will be Australia's last manned submarine. So in the event of the Attack program failing a possible Plan B might be to simply extend the life of the Collins for as long as possible and move directly into Unmanned Underwater Vessels.
I don’t think the age of manned submarines is closing, they will be around for some time yet.
How they are used may change and they probably will have unmanned vehicles able to be deployed from them.
Command and Control underwater is not an easy undertaking, particularly at long range and it also varies greatly with water bathymetry so direct human oversight is essential.
Yes there will be many remote vehicles developed for specific purposes and able to be programmed for a variety of tasks but the full range of capabilities of large manned boats cannot be replaced with current technology IMHO
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think the answer to that is rather simple, nil, zero, none.
The thing I always find interesting whenever Collins II or Son of Collins (whatever people want to call it) is mentioned, you would think that the ‘go’ button is ready to be pushed. But it isn’t.
Is there a complete finished design available? A drawer full of design and engineering blueprints? No? I thought not.
What about infrastructure? All ready to go? No? What about the workforce? Ready to go? No again? Materials and equipment necessary to build Collins II? Another no?
As it stands today, there is no Collins II design ready to go from ‘now’, the infrastructure used to build Collins is now used for Collins class FCD. The infrastructure to be used in the Attack class build is still a few years away from completion. The manpower currently at ASC is dedicated to Collins sustainment, which must continue, the manpower for Attack has to be built over the coming years, etc, etc.
I think a better question would be to ask, what is the construction status of the Attack class by 2035?
Assuming construction starts in 2024 (I’ve also seen 2023 mentioned too), but let’s stick with 2024 as the start date.
A drumbeat of 24mths between boats, eg starting 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, etc.
A total of six boats should have been started (24mths apart) by 2035, there would probably be two boats in commission and possibly a third in the water or soon to go into the water.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
Cheers,
There used to be a heap of them at Liechardt in Sydney, not sure what happened to them.
"HMAS Sheean visited Beauty Point, Tasmania, as part of her first deployment of 2021. It is the first of a series of port visits to the state for the submarine, which was named for Victoria Cross recipient Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean, who was from Tasmania. The Collins Class submarine has been participating with ships and aircraft in Fleet Certification Period 2021, an annual high-end warfighting exercise." (Image source - ADF Image Library link)
thatsamguy
Member
I was surprised to see a not scathing article in The Australian by Greg Sheridan "Naval Group agreement for local quotas on Attack submarines" (apologies, pay-walled).
It was mostly all around percentage of content in the contract, but with variations for each stage of the build and incentives for Naval Group if they exceed local content requirements.
That said, the most interesting part to see from my perspective was the following quote:
It was mostly all around percentage of content in the contract, but with variations for each stage of the build and incentives for Naval Group if they exceed local content requirements.
That said, the most interesting part to see from my perspective was the following quote:
Considering the earlier mentions of culture and process clashes, this is a really positive perspective to be taking and hopefully is real and not just vendor talk. This perspective is really what Australia wanted after all - high end, unique capability matched with more production and design sovereignty. Glad to see Defence taking a strong approach.
Keep an eye out for the video, if they release it of course, of Greg with Peta Credlin on Sky tonight, he did not let her get away with nitpicking comments and talked over her as she tried to cut him off, he did a really good job explaining it to her, Peta did not like it too much, she just likes to bash the Attack project because her and TA were pushed out !!
It’s a relief to hear a cogent discourse stating the obvious regarding the Attacks.
It’s a damn shame that some of those in government aren’t doing more to dispel the rubbish trumpeted by Sen Rex Patrick and the cheerleaders, I’m looking at you Gottliebsen, casting doubt on on the programme.
The RAN leaders are constrained by their positions and can’t enter the public debate and the opportunities to correct the BS, such as Senate Estimates, come around far too infrequently.
- Status