Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Looking at the briefing on the Virginia Class submarines described on the Defence website for AUKUS, it refers to 12 VLS tubes or 2 VPT, which would appear to match Virginia Block III or Block IV.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I'd imagine that a secondhand American SSN with a limited life will effectively be on a lease until expected end of life, then returned to the USA. If I, as the customer, had to pay for the decommissioning I'd expect to be paid handsomely to take it off their hands, not pay them for it
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Scott, that fact sheet shows the 12 VLS tubes fitted to hull numbers 774 to 783 which covers the 4 Block 1 & 6 Block 2. The two VPT’s are fitted to hull numbers 784 to 801 which covers the 8 Block 3 & 10 Block 4. The list on Wikipedia gives all the details.
Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia
Hinkley is 3,260MW, just saying
Keatings and interesting character. But he has a unique view of the world. Its interesting, and sometimes worthy of academic debate. Disbanding NATO, a very different view of relationships in Asia and India and America. He believes America is in decline. I don't think he is in China's pocket, the Chinese also find him extremely difficult, because Keating has strong views on lots of things. Keating is just disliked by a few people, everyone hates/is annoyed by him. He was mentored by big Jack. Big jack was kicked out of the labour party and nearly caused a civil war between NSW and Australian governments. Keating gets air time because he is a legitimate counter view on almost any issue. You will get interesting television or radio if you put Keating on.
Keating's strategic view is completely opposite of Beasley and Rudd and current Labor's thinking. Keating is right, the subs alone isn't enough to singularly deter China.
There is a often an opportunity to get carried away with things like this. That some singular uber weapon will completely change everything. It doesn't. China is certainly going to be annoyed. But it alone isn't going to completely change the situation. It shapes it, but doesn't wash it away.
These are important details. If we operate the Virginia sub for 10 of its 30+ years, do we pay a 1/3 of the disposal, which occurs in the US? They seemed to indicate and the way it was spoken, that any AU sub would be decommissioned and stored here. But that may just be an oversimplifcation over the life of the program, not specifically for the first subs.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Thanks, sorry. I should have said GW, not MW, for all those figuresHinkley is 3,260MW, just saying
I am correcting that post. The cost relativities remain the same.InterestedParty
Active Member
The hull forms of the Astute and the Virginia submarines are very different, the Virginia being what appears as an evolution of the earlier teardrop hulls, significantly longer
Is there a technical benefit in the Astute shape, I assume that there must be? Its been a long time since I studied fluid mechanics at UNSW
Is there a technical benefit in the Astute shape, I assume that there must be? Its been a long time since I studied fluid mechanics at UNSW
Some discussion previously on the question of ‘new build’ Virginias selected as the last two optionals.
I might suggest that we may not want new builds.
These optional boats would themselves be placeholders pending catch up completion of the eventual ‘AUKUS class’, correct?
A new build boat implies it would probably remain in the RAN fleet for its entire 25 +/- year lifespan, further exacerbating a mixed fleet for a generation.
Perhaps cheaper older lifespan boats may be sufficient to dovetail timings into projected AUKUS class commissionings?
I might suggest that we may not want new builds.
These optional boats would themselves be placeholders pending catch up completion of the eventual ‘AUKUS class’, correct?
A new build boat implies it would probably remain in the RAN fleet for its entire 25 +/- year lifespan, further exacerbating a mixed fleet for a generation.
Perhaps cheaper older lifespan boats may be sufficient to dovetail timings into projected AUKUS class commissionings?
Lolcake
Active Member
I had a listen to that Keating interview live. I rather enjoyed his banter in the 90s, always had the gift of the silver tongue.
Yesterday he truly lost the plot. Wasn't anything coherent in what he was saying, rather blatantly ignored questions regarding China's un rivalled military build up and transgressions. Mao Zedong himself would have been proud of his pro China stance. Then he went on a tirade attacking Albanese and co.
Truth be told, if I'm as half as coherent as he is at age 80 then I'd be doing well, more than likely I succumb to being a grumpy old fart playing a bit of Keno down at the local RSL.
Yesterday he truly lost the plot. Wasn't anything coherent in what he was saying, rather blatantly ignored questions regarding China's un rivalled military build up and transgressions. Mao Zedong himself would have been proud of his pro China stance. Then he went on a tirade attacking Albanese and co.
Truth be told, if I'm as half as coherent as he is at age 80 then I'd be doing well, more than likely I succumb to being a grumpy old fart playing a bit of Keno down at the local RSL.
Last edited:
Keating totally lost me when he said we would be better off with 45 - 50 Collins class instead of the new SSNs! However, interviews with him are usually, as @StingrayOZ says, 'interesting'.
BTW, I am starting to believe that 80 is not that old - I'll be there fairly soon!
Tas
I would expect that this will all be part of the negotiations that will need to take place over the rest of this decade. Whilst the cost of decommissioning a nuclear submarine transferred in the early 2030s with an expected service life of around 15 years might seem onerous and excessive, the US, IMO, does hold the whip hand as Australia will likely have no alternatives, other than a submarine capability gap. The proposed arrangement may also act as a sweetener to opponents of the deal in Congress.
Tas
In regards to the choice of capability this article suggests that it was Australia which made some choices to their requirements in not needing the V.P.M ,it also states that special operations forces are able to use such other articles have suggested unmanned drones may be launched from the V.P.M and the future AUKUS will not have this feature
Everything We Know About The Future SSN-AUKUS Submarine's Configuration (thedrive.com)
Everything We Know About The Future SSN-AUKUS Submarine's Configuration (thedrive.com)
Good insight from CBS News Hour, gives more of an American perspective.
Australia buys American-made submarines to counter China's growing presence in Pacific - YouTube
The question about capacity to build the Virginia Class fast enough is still not really answered yet.
Australia buys American-made submarines to counter China's growing presence in Pacific - YouTube
The question about capacity to build the Virginia Class fast enough is still not really answered yet.
Can anyone explain to me why decomissioning is so difficult? I am not a naval engineer, nor a nuclear engineer, nor any sort of engineer, but it seems to me that if you have a self contained reactor that is not meant to be opened during the life of the sub, at the end of life don't you:
(a) make sure the control rods are fully inserted and permanently locked in place
(b) cut the reactor out of the hull intact
(c) dig a big hole in a geologically stable bit of desert (we're not short on for that)
(d) put the reactor in the hole
(e) fill the hole with lots and lots and lots of concrete.
Or does leaving HEU unprocessed and outside a nuclear powered vessel (even if buried a long way underground and effectively inaccessible) breach the NPT or something?
I can understand for legacy reactors where the they were not self contained that this would be more difficult, but what gives?
EDIT: For typos
protoplasm
Active Member
Must be completely defueled first, you cant just leave the HEU with the Pu and other actinides out in the desert. This process is all remote and challenging as well as needing high security. It just has to be done carefully
knightrider4
Active Member
There will be a significant amount of heat generated due to thermal decay I would say you will have to deal with that for x amount of years before storage. Also the parts that make up the primary cooling circuit would be heavily contaminated, pipes, valves etc etc not as simple as one would assume. Happy to be corrected. I would think but have no way of knowing for sure that the RN's decommisioned boats tied up along side would still have their primary cooling circuits still maintained and running to ensure that the issue of thermal decay is managed.
Last edited by a moderator:
What happens if you don’t, out of interest?
knightrider4
Active Member
I'm no Nuclear Engineer but Plutonium is probably the most toxic substance on earth, Strontium-90 and Caesium-134-137 are also highly toxic. There are others but these would be the main by products of nuclear fission you would have to be aware of.
I hope this article provides some ideas of the ongoing mess still going on and the problems faced with the dismantling
How do you dismantle a nuclear submarine? - BBC Future