peterAustralia
Member
I think these sorts of discussions need a separate thread. Am already having some good discussions via private messages
RAN Discussions on SSNs only
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
- Status
That is exactly what the IAEA and AUKUS need to discuss and figure out during the next 18 months. Perhaps US & UK nuclear personnel can be seconded in the submarine as part of the reactor team. Maybe the reactor is not bought but leased, and thus Australia doesn't own the reactor nor the fuel. The assumption here that if both UK and US wanted to supply Australia with nuclear weapons they can do so without needing to use the submarine as camouflage. Or perhaps IAEA personnel with the correct security clearance can confirm that the reactor is intact. Dunno.
Alternatively Australia can use fuel that is not weapons grade and accept the technical limitations. (Shrug) Or go back to SSK.
I am going to disengage a bit from this thread. It's not my country and while I enjoy talking about technology, if Australia decides that they do not get SSN after all, that's no skin off my nose either.
How exactly? HEU reactors don't need to be refueled. I assume there will be no fuel or refuelling facilities in Australia. How many countries apart from the original 5 nuclear powers have SSNs right now? 1 - India. Our SSNs will have the US and UK standing behind them, effectively vouching for us. I think the IAEA has bigger fish to fry frankly.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We would never really own a US Reactor, part of any deal would involve the Reactor being returned to the US after the Sub is decommissioned and they would decommission the Reactor and send us the Bill.
The IAEA will and should be involved in this because of the international diplomatic ramifications of it. They will be able to independently certify whether or not the material in the reactors is being used for the specified purpose and that purpose only. That will give other nations within the region certainty and trust that they may not have with any or all of the AUKUS partners. You need nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia being friends and partners, not cold and hostile towards you.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Does the IAEA have access to RN and USN reactors? If not, I doubt either country will want the IAEA poking around their IP aboard Australian SSNs.
They don't, but this is a different situation.
I’m sure it is. A quick google shows an institution called the “IAEA-China Nuclear Energy Management School”, based in Beijing, currently accepting applications
(apologies for OTT)
It is only the most modern and advanced HEU reactors that a fueled for life. Australia refuels its OPAL reactor which is LEU. Australia used to refuel its HIFAR reactor which was HEU. It is not exactly true to say Australia has no experience with refueling reactors. It has no experience in refueling naval nuclear reactors. We have helped the Argentinians fix a few problems with their fuel assemblies. Australia has a long history of nuclear science research and technologies. We however, do not have many nuclear technicians. Those that we do have are located in Sydney.
Australia knows enough about nuclear technology, to make it as simple as possible. US an American reactor, give it back to them. Entirely doable.
I believe this is how it would work. US would have complete ownership of any material and the reactor. It may even be in a form of lease arrangement.
The Americans may be unhappy about this, naval reactors aren't really designed to be audited. They wouldn't want anyone other than their own people auditing/looking accessing the reactor and systems. Even the status of the reactors, how much life is left, fuel size and status would be confidential. However, the Americans would sign off on Australia meeting their obligations.
Probably the key thing is ensuring the SSN reactor go back to the US for decommissioning and reprocessing of the fuel and any plutonium inside.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview - World Nuclear Association
The nuclear fuel cycle is the series of industrial processes which involve the production of electricity from uranium in nuclear power reactors. Uranium is a relatively common element that is found throughout the world.
world-nuclear.org
I imagine this would be enough for the Indonesians and the Malaysians, unless they want to have a falling out with the Americans. The Chinese won't be happy. But that is kind of the point.
Australia has always been pretty open with IAEA. Honestly Australia using reactor fuel to create weapons is not the obvious or feasible way for Australia to gain nuclear weapons. If Australia wanted that, we would go in another direction.
Australia would gladly meet its nuclear weapons ambitions with a dual key arrangement as such with various NATO states. This is a widely recognised control. Knocking it back would be hard as it would undermined the entire US presence in Europe and weapons stored there inc UK and Germany. The Russians in this case aren't going to kick up a fuss, they know they are going to sell more weapon systems, and Australia has essentially no issue with Russia (at least in the nuclear geopolitical sense). This would only be pursued if China started openly threatening Australia with nuclear strikes. It is not part of current strategy to pursue this option, although clearly its there.
Australia isn't seeking its own sovereign nuclear weapons program to launch its own sovereign bombs independently of everyone else. It is not trying to be a separate nuclear power. It is seeking a way that it is completely tied into the US umbrella that it can't be extracted from it and would be an essential part of launching it.
Australia is again, not seeking any particular status for itself. It simply seeks to defend itself from Chinese threats. Australia isn't Turkey. It isn't playing power games between two major powers. Australia would always side with the US, and everyone knows it. Australians would phrase it differently, the Americans would side with Australia.
Given the political weakness and uncertainty in the US. Having a strong and bipartisan ally like Australia (and the UK) makes the China issue one much more digestible. The US is immensely powerful but politically can become distracted or struggle with priorities and lose itself in policy. Australia solves that issue for them. If they have to a whole war can basically be fought and commanded from Australia.
Ultimately if you want the US engaged in S.E.A and the Indo-pacific, supporting Australia is central to that. If the US leaves, then you are talking about handing it all over to the CCP.
Nuclear subs for Australia is all about meeting the Chinese threat. Ultimately Australia doesn't' really care what submarine it operates, as long as it is the most capable to meet the threat.
This is slightly off the beaten track, but related to the subject at hand. Recently I looked at some socialist left Greens Party comment in the NZ digital press STUFF. They were banging on about the evils of Australia getting the SSN's and how it would upset Australia's neighbors and make them very suspicious. and the formation of the AUKUS alliance was not necessary and would be controlled by America.
At the end of the article in the readers comments section someone had written "What happens if France is allowed to join? Then you will have an alliance instead of AUKUS it would be (F)AUKUS. Very witty I thought even for the trendy lefties.
At the end of the article in the readers comments section someone had written "What happens if France is allowed to join? Then you will have an alliance instead of AUKUS it would be (F)AUKUS. Very witty I thought even for the trendy lefties.
Yes I remember reading that article and that comment. The greens and the rabid lefties are frothing at the mouth about it but there's pushback as well.
Not sure how having an SSN is a steping stone that must then lead to a nuclear weapons program.
Look to South Africa, Israel, Iran , North Korea and Pakistan all with no SSNs, all with a nuclear weapons program.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And look at Brazil, no Nuke weapons program but is now building its first SSN, you can have one without the other.
MilitaryIndustrialComplex
New Member
Threat emanating from what PLA-Navy carrier groups? PLA- Rocket Force?
In case of the former a few Australian SSNs will not deter a Chinese carrier group even if the U.S or U.K agrees to lease two or three SSNs to Australia immediately. Just the PLA-Navy's South China fleet is larger than the combined fleet of Australia, NZ, India and Indonesia. And they have Asia's most extensive anti submarine warfare capability.
In case of the latter, Australia will need SSBNs and SSGNs capable of firing long range cruise and ballistic missiles.
More importantly, Australia does not need SSNs to deter China if it can develop Ballistic Missiles. Australia can simply place ballistic missiles in the country's northern parts that will cover most of China's southern provinces where a number of Chinese metro cities are located. Modern day ballistic missiles have modern inertial navigation systems that make them very accurate. Solid rocket powered ballistic missile that manouvers are very capable at evading enemy air defences.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
ICBMs are very expensive as launch systems for conventional weapons. Limited range ballistic missiles for southern Chinese provinces, again with conventional weapons, an expensive option. Even a 1000 missiles with conventional weapons, what’s the impact of a superpower like China? Then there is the effectiveness of China’s missile defence system. Finally, there is the question of WTF kind of warhead does a ballistic missile heading your way really have? A wrong assumption on China’s part gets a bad response.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Sorry but you really need to do some Homework in regards to Australia, ICBMs? armed with what? Boomerangs? Because there is no way we are going to go down the Nuclear Weapons path.
Word of advice, Australian ICBMs are pure fantasy and the Mods and Defpros on here really don't like Fantasy Fleets. They have opened up a thread for RAN fantasy, might be a good idea to stick to using that thread, this one is for RAN SSNs.
Just friendly advice but the Mods can be a grumpy lot.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I suspect it is a bit early to speculate on what deterrent effect the RAN's SSNs are likely to have when we don't know what they are yet. For example the Virginia Blk V (one possible candidate) with its 40 Tomahawks and potential for hypersonics like the IR-CPS is a very different beast to your typical Astute class SSN. At any rate, Australia's geography works in our favour, in that the sea lanes between our part of the world and China's feature a multitude of bottlenecks and chokepoints. Not fun to transit with state of the art SS(G)Ns hunting you...
Indonesia is concerned about our SSN. Enviromentally and strategic concerns they have are legitament. Imagine the diplomatic fall out if we stationed ballistic missiles in northern Australia. The only way to China is across Indonesian airspace. Australia would be pointing missiles towards Indonesia. We would be telling Indonesia "No worries mate. These little beauties are flying to China.". I think Indonesia would be more than concerned.
Regards
DD
Australian SSN’s along with US, British and Indian vessels are a huge deterrent to the Chinese Communists. A handful of communist capital ships at the bottom of the South China Sea will have a massive effect on national opinion in China. Not to mention the thousands of “one child policy” boys that go down with them.
I don’t think the Chinese can afford to risk losing the single male children of thousands of families. They would lose all support very quickly.
A strong submarine force will hold the line indefinitely.
MilitaryIndustrialComplex
New Member
An ICBM does not necessarily have to be armed with a nuclear warhead. The Prompt Global Strike (PGS) effort of the U.S military intends to strike a target anywhere in the world with an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead.
If the intention is to simply keep the PLA-Navy away from Australian territorial waters then Australian F-18F Super Hornet armed with AGM-84 is more than enough.
So instead of an ICBM, what's the other cost effective option of striking China? Australian SSNs will at best be armed with 1000 miles ranged Tomahawk cruise missiles.
For that observe the current military stand off between China and India. India has deployed at best a few dozen rockets and missiles. But this deployment itself has forced the Chinese to negotiate and even back off.
Homegrown solutions has come a cropper. That explains why they had to purchase S-400 from Russia and is now planning to develop a missile warning system using Russian expertise.
Last edited:
- Status