Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I disagree PM Howard was the latest who tried to stir the debate the minority(Greens, left factions) have the loudest voices and shut down debate, if nuclear was a cheaper alternative power(carbon pricing) here then if the question was put before the Australian people in a plebiscite only then could we have a serious debate, but we have not had the serious debate but can we have the serious debate is another issue without the left shouting out and closing down debates

Nuclear – Parliament of Australia

The two main political parties won’t debate a nuclear power industry because they know there is no way the electorate will accept it, they won’t even accept disposing of medical nuclear waste in their respective states, that’s why the NT was chosen as a waste sight because the Commonwealth had jurisdiction, all the states refused to countenance the idea for fear of a backlash.

It’s similar to the submarine debate, the obvious solution for Australia is SSNs, the obvious solution to reduce emissions is nuclear power but our people will go to enermous lengths to deny its benefit and find alternatives.

 

[vonnoobie]

Looking at his article so many flawed points he has come up with...

• Cost - We don't know the actual cost of our submarines, We have a budget to work within but realistically by the time we start building them it's any ones guess what the price could be. Could be as high as the $50 billion to as low as $20 billion depending on your accounting method. Same then applies to any overseas buy, Big talk that we can buy a US submarine for $1.7 billion (from other sources through out the web) because the US got 10 for $17 billion but no accounting for fact we would be acquiring ours over longer period, no inflation accounted for, Or that US industry can't actually meet that and would require another shipyard just to do so (or so I imagine) nor does that take into account any changes in tech and what that could end up adding to the cost or if the US would even give the exact same copy to us or would it be a watered down version?.
• Proven design - Yes it's a proven design, One issue though with that philosophy is if you are always sticking with proven designs then you are behind the 8 ball. Your always left to play catch up while your potential opponents are pulling way ahead of you, That's fine if your opponents are poor or small but when one of them is China then it's as much a risk staying behind the 8 ball then pushing the boundaries
• Endurance - Outside of my scope but honestly haven't seen much ever actually anything of Australian submarines refueling at some ship or location before they went on there long range multiple month long missions into the SCS and Northern Pacific. These new boat's will have even more range with the only draw back being food, Which nuclear boats have same issue. Conventional boats have met or endurance requirements in the past allowing us to operate as far as the Soviet bases in the Northern Pacific so why bring the endurance argument up now? Decades of past use tends to negate that argument entirely.
• Undetectability - Well not so true. Depends on the environment you are operating in and the proficiency of the crew. Open ocean, Here nor there. Shallow waters.. Well your heat signature is more prominent as well as your EM signature, Not taking this as gospel so please advise but have heard these are larger on nuclear submarine compared to a diesel operating on batteries. If that is the case then shallow waters risk becoming a no go zone for our boats. What happens to be through out South East Asia? Shallow waters.
• Speed - Good for moving fast when you have to but it kind of defeats the purpose of stealth, More speed means more noise. Using it to get ahead of some one, Means you have to know where they are either by getting intel (which you should run on the assumption the enemy can trace to a location, Better safe then sorry) or following them already (In which case why wait to attack or how wide a berth will you give them before you can pick up speed with out them hearing you shoot off?)
• Crew - Buying crews? Here I thought slavery was illegal. Yes I know he mentioned trying to recruit crews but that is a very risky proposition to base the entire program around. It assumes that the US is able to let them go, That the crews want to go or that those already retired are willing to join the service again and proficient with current systems. One thing if its a few dozen, Completely new game if its several hundred.
• Safety - Does he realize that conventional boats are just as safe if not safer then nuclear boats? Either one has an issue its still mostly the same risks to the crew only difference being from what I can see the ecological side of things. Worst case conventional boat goes down and diesel leaks everywhere, bad but not permanent. Nuclear boat goes down and radiates the region around it that could affect the health and economy of those in the region for decades. One could cost you couple hundred million on the upper end of the scale (excluding salvage if needed), Other would be in the billions.
• Deterrence - Conventional submarines have the same deterrence as that of a nuclear boat, Pointless argument to make.

Just my point of view to the guys post.

 

[John Fedup]

There are two types of endurance, range and submerged range. The latter is where the SSN has the advantage. Same applies to submerged speed. If you need to run fast and for a long time, the SSN wins. Whether these advantages justify the extra cost and dealing with the negative public is another matter.

OT a bit but the attitude towards things nuclear in Canada versus Australia would likely be the same had it not been for Canada's early entry into the nuclear business. In the late 1940s, early 1950s, nuclear power was see as an unlimited clean and cheap power source so it was easily promoted back in the "golden age". Once you have an industry employing 30,000 (lower now) with high paying jobs, that provides lots of political cover. Even today, nuclear is acceptable in Canada although the stupidity of Ontario's power industry creates a cost problem. When PM Mulroney proposed a fleet of nuclear subs back in the late 1980s, it wasn't anti-nuclear attitudes so much but rather the economic mess the country was in (largely because of interest rates applied to Trudeau Sr. massive debt created in the 1970s and early 80s).

At least Australia has a submarine plan for the future whereas Canada doesn't and may not.

 

[hauritz]

The SSN debate will go on for decades. I suggest the first step would be for Australia to establish a nuclear power industry. Once that happens we can talk about nuclear subs.

Unfortunately ... or fortunately ... depending on how you feel about the subject, it seems unlikely that Australia will ever adopt nuclear power. We have huge coal reserves and a strong movement towards using renewable energy. Not surprisingly that leaves us with the most expensive electricity in the world.

Unless Australia does eventually realise that renewables are unlikely to be able to replace baseload electricity and coal powered stations are more polluting than Nuclear power we are probably more likely to see solar powered subs than Nukes.

 

[t68]

It’s interesting that SA is the only state has pursed the remove at federal existing prohibitions on nuclear power

Australia
2016 production of 257 TWh: 219 TWh fossil fuels; 18 TWh solar & wind; 15 TWh hydro; 4 TWh biofuels & waste.

Australia's electricity mix gives it a high output of CO2, which is the main reason for consideration of possible nuclear generation in the future. Low-cost power has been a competitive advantage of the country, and nearly 10% of its electricity is embedded in aluminium exports. Australia joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in September 2007.

Australia has operated a research reactor since 1956 and has now commissioned its 20 MWt replacement.

About 1970 the Australian government sought tenders for building a nuclear power reactor at Jervis Bay, NSW. Designs from UK, USA, Germany and Canada were shortlisted, but a change in leadership led to the project being cancelled in 1972. However, until 1983 there were various plans and proposals for building an enrichment plant.

At the end of 2006 the report of the Prime Minster's expert taskforce considering nuclear power was released. It said nuclear power would be 20-50% more expensive than coal-fired power and (with renewables) it would only be competitive if "low to moderate" costs are imposed on carbon emissions (A$ 15-40 – US$ 12-30 – per tonne CO2). "Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology that can provide base-load power" and has low life cycle impacts environmentally. The first nuclear plants could be running in 15 years, and looking beyond that, 25 reactors at coastal sites might be supplying one-third of Australia's (doubled) electricity demand by 2050. Certainly "the challenge to contain and reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be considerably eased by investment in nuclear plants." "Emission reductions from nuclear power could reach 8 to 18% of national emissions in 2050."

In May 2016 the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle reported. It found that it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in the state under current market rules, but noted that as "a low-carbon energy source comparable with other renewable technologies," nuclear may be required in the future. It therefore recommended that the South Australian government should "pursue removal at the federal level of existing prohibitions on nuclear power generation to allow it to contribute to a low-carbon electricity system, if required." It also called for the removal at the federal level of prohibitions on the licensing of fuel cycle facilities, although it noted that in a currently oversupplied market the provision of such services would not be commercially viable in the next decade. Meanwhile, “the South Australian Government [should] promote and collaborate on the development of a comprehensive national energy policy that enables all technologies, including nuclear, to contribute to a reliable, low-carbon electricity network at the lowest possible system cost.”

See also information papers on Australia's Uranium and Australia's Electricity for further information.

Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries | New Nuclear Build Countries - World Nuclear Association

 

[MrConservative]

Unfortunately ... or fortunately ... depending on how you feel about the subject, it seems unlikely that Australia will ever adopt nuclear power. We have huge coal reserves and a strong movement towards using renewable energy. Not surprisingly that leaves us with the most expensive electricity in the world.

Unless Australia does eventually realise that renewables are unlikely to be able to replace baseload electricity and coal powered stations are more polluting than Nuclear power we are probably more likely to see solar powered subs than Nukes.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand will eventually follow the world into the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor space unless they want to remain as quaint oldy worldy backwaters with an intermittent and expensive energy supply. Governments in some large and emerging industrial societies are moving into this rapidly and the energy and tech sector venture capitalists are following the money and away from solar and wind. Try looking for additional equity for a wind or solar farm today is about the same as going to them and saying hey guys I need more investment capital as I think VHS is going to make a comeback.

 

[John Fedup]

Global climate change has become the lifeline for the nuclear industry as it is the only emission free baseload power source (other than hydro dams). Thorium reactors will be the future unless there is a surprise development in fusion technology.

 

[hauritz]

Countries like Australia and New Zealand will eventually follow the world into the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor space unless they want to remain as quaint oldy worldy backwaters with an intermittent and expensive energy supply. Governments in some large and emerging industrial societies are moving into this rapidly and the energy and tech sector venture capitalists are following the money and away from solar and wind. Try looking for additional equity for a wind or solar farm today is about the same as going to them and saying hey guys I need more investment capital as I think VHS is going to make a comeback.

... and the price of energy drives the cost of just about everything. It isn't just the power bill. It's the stuff we buy in the shops and an added burden for industry. The cost of energy means a virtually non-existent manufacturing industry. It is even cheaper to smelt steel overseas than it is in Australia.

To be honest the energy policy in Australia is sheer madness. Not only is renewable energy expensive but the process of making solar panels and other equipment required for renewable energy is itself more polluting than Nuclear power.

Unless Australia adopts nuclear power we will probably never have a shipbuilding industry that is competitive on the world stage and we will never have nuclear powered subs.

 

[vonnoobie]

Unless Australia adopts nuclear power we will probably never have a shipbuilding industry that is competitive on the world stage and we will never have nuclear powered subs.

So we had nuclear power through out the 90's and 2000's where the Anzac class cost per a ship shrunk to prices less then that of Germany?

Before people go off into fantasy land. Australia wont ever have nuclear power in any form be it power or submarine until such time as we have a proper national debate which would have to cover everything from refining through to disposal followed by a plebiscite, The Thorium reactors people love so much are still decades off and the investments in them are a fraction of what is being put into renewable. Thorium has received a couple billion in funding over the last decade, Renewable energy got $274 and $279.8 billion in investment in 2016 and 2017 alone and still growing. If people are going to go OT then be factual and realistic.

That said lets get this back on track, This thread is to discuss the RAN and not Australia's energy policy.

Thank you.

 

[hauritz]

So we had nuclear power through out the 90's and 2000's where the Anzac class cost per a ship shrunk to prices less then that of Germany?

Before people go off into fantasy land. Australia wont ever have nuclear power in any form be it power or submarine until such time as we have a proper national debate which would have to cover everything from refining through to disposal followed by a plebiscite, The Thorium reactors people love so much are still decades off and the investments in them are a fraction of what is being put into renewable. Thorium has received a couple billion in funding over the last decade, Renewable energy got $274 and $279.8 billion in investment in 2016 and 2017 alone and still growing. If people are going to go OT then be factual and realistic.

That said lets get this back on track, This thread is to discuss the RAN and not Australia's energy policy.

Thank you.

I beg to differ. The cost of energy is a crucial element if Australia is to have a viable shipbuilding industry.

Power prices have soared since the Anzacs were built. Off the top of my head the cost of energy in Australia has gone up by 40% to 50% above the inflation rate over the last decade. It is now almost double what the Americans pay.

 

[seaspear]

Australia did some very serious research much of it unpublished in the sixties when there was a consideration of nuclear weapons .
The Lithium ion fuelled Soryu class looks promising for non nuclear submarines but that appears the R.A.N is not taking that option

 

[t68]

Australia did some very serious research much of it unpublished in the sixties when there was a consideration of nuclear weapons .
The Lithium ion fuelled Soryu class looks promising for non nuclear submarines but that appears the R.A.N is not taking that option

I thought they were still planning on using them in the Shortfin, still get the same benifits

 

[John Newman]

... I suggest the first step would be for Australia to establish a nuclear power industry. Once that happens we can talk about nuclear subs.

Sorry, and with all due respect, that is wrong, completely wrong.

I've said this many times before (and again probably until I'm blue in the face), the very 'start' of anything Nuclear here in Oz will only happen once there is bipartisan support from the major political parties (the ones that can form Government), it is as simple as that.

The only way we can have support from the general population for such things to develop (eg, firstly a proper debate on all things Nuclear), is if there is bipartisan support from both the LNP and the ALP (the Greens will never change their anti position).

If you look at all the Polls regarding Nuclear power, the for and against, for those who support the major political parties it is rather stark:

* LNP - 2/3rd for and 1/3rd against
* ALP - 1/3rd for and 2/3rd against
* Greens - 20% for and 80% against

Yes the LNP could potentially come out with a 'pro' nuclear policy and not loose too much support (and maybe pick up some of the pro nuclear ALP voters too), on the other hand if the ALP came out in support of a 'pro' nuclear policy, it potentially has a lot to loose (I would imagine they would have the most to loose with a lot of their support migrating further to the Left over to the Greens), the Greens will never change their position.

So what does this all mean?

In general the LNP is pro, the Greens against, and the ALP caught in the middle with the most to loose, from a political support point of view, if it changes from its current anti nuclear policy to a pro nuclear policy.

From a personal point of view, I'm 100% pro for a much enhanced Nuclear industry in Oz, from mining, to processing, re-processing, waste management, power stations and eventually SSNs for the RAN, and beyond to possessing a Nuclear deterrent, if absolutely necessary way into the future.

But my point of view means nothing, all our points of view mean nothing, if there is not the bipartisan support.

Don't want to sound like a wet blanket, we can talk about SSNs for the RAN until the cows come home, it isn't going to mean Jack Sh*t unless there is bipartisan political support for such things to develop (and I'll probably be dead and buried long before that change comes about too).

And of course, just my opinion.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

I beg to differ. The cost of energy is a crucial element if Australia is to have a viable shipbuilding industry.

Power prices have soared since the Anzacs were built. Off the top of my head the cost of energy in Australia has gone up by 40% to 50% above the inflation rate over the last decade. It is now almost double what the Americans pay.

Are you really willing to test the Moderators patience by continuing to push the nuclear boat and keep steering the thread off topic? If we lock it who's fault will it be?

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the batteries on submarines the lithium batteries on the Soryu are yet to be fully tested, There first submarine was only launched 4 days ago. We are going to see a long test and evaluation period with this boat due to the change in batteries. We wont know anything official on just how effective they are in submarines for months (if we are lucky) perhaps years (if Japan chooses to keep the results hush hush).

For the Shortfin nothing concrete has been decided beyond the combat system and the torpedoes, Anything more then that is up for evaluation. If Japans first boat and the follow on boats show extreme promise with no more risk then that of standard submarine batteries then good chance the Shortfin will have them, If they show they may need more work then likely at least the first few will have old style batteries with option left open to fit lithium batteries in the later builds while retrofitting the initial boats during an FCD.

 

[John Fedup]

If the batteries prove to be very successful for sub operation then whether Japan shares this technology might depend on the economics of selling the battery technology on its own or integrated with an exportable submarine.

 

[John Newman]

Here's something Submarine related for everyone to get their teeth into:

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-10/SR 128 Thinking through sub transition.pdf?hBI2AIjcgfCmWfgSWQTwaTl5fiQoCgkm

A report just released on the ASPI website, "Thinking Through Submarine Transition", 46 page PDF.

Enjoy!

 

[hauritz]

Here's something Submarine related for everyone to get their teeth into:

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-10/SR 128 Thinking through sub transition.pdf?hBI2AIjcgfCmWfgSWQTwaTl5fiQoCgkm

A report just released on the ASPI website, "Thinking Through Submarine Transition", 46 page PDF.

Enjoy!

Back when Australia was transitioning from the Oberons to the Collins the size of the sub fleet dropped to 3 boats with the bulk of the Oberon fleet being decommissioned before the HMAS Collins entered service. For that reason I wouldn't assume that Australia would even maintain the fleet at its current number during the transition period let alone try to expand as quickly as possible to 12 boats.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Bearing in mind that it occurred during the great peace and the end of the cold war. Also same may remember Collins didn't really have an easy gestation, and Oberons were getting more expensive and harder to operate as parts and stores dried up and another refit loomed. We also ripped apart the sub base and moved it 7000km away (under advice of the Americans).

I would say the current situation is very different.

I think it is highly likely the Collins will see an extended life and kept in service as long as possible.

 

[aussienscale]

If the batteries prove to be very successful for sub operation then whether Japan shares this technology might depend on the economics of selling the battery technology on its own or integrated with an exportable submarine.

No real need, DCNS or Naval Group have been working on this tech for some time, and has been alluded to for the Australian build for some time.

Recent below article from Defence Connect:

"So, I was energised to see in Naval Group’s Australian Industry Plan for the $50 billion future submarine, tabled by government against its will in the final moments of the last Senate sitting week, making mention of French intentions to establish a Lithium Ion Battery Centre-of-Excellence/Innovation Cluster."

A French-led lithium revolution for Australia - Defence Connect

If you do a little digging someone might be able to find what was tabled to the Senate

Cheers