Utopia Talk / Politics / British nukeboats are on the table

shannon Member	Fri Jun 11 19:30:41 “Australia should fundamentally rethink its submarine program and consider buying nuclear-powered boats”. Tony Abbott, Former Australian PM and current UK Govt Board of Trade advisor. “Nuclear submarines could solve one of Australia’s ‘great strategic challenges” Admiral James Goldrick Royal Australian Navy “The government is examining a fallback to the French deal. It became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack class program over the last 15 months” Australian Defence Department secretary Greg Moriarty "Clearly there have been problems with the arrangements with Naval Group. There has been concern on both sides in relation to the programme and I need to make sure that we have the best capacity available to us." Peter Dutton Australian Defence Minister “While there are many challenges back at home, this is a very important place for Australia to be today, as we touch down here in the United Kingdom. There’s never been a more important time for Australia to be sitting around the table. There is much at stake for Australia, for our region, and the world. We are living in a time of great uncertainty not seen since the 1930s,” Scott Morrison Australian Prime Minister
Seb Member	Sat Jun 12 06:46:48 Given the timescales for delivery of the last UK Astute, this seems unlikely a viable option. Also the I'm not sure we are making PWR2/b's anymore, and PWR3 for the Dreadnaughts and slated for the Astute replacement is a US design licensed under not-for-export and use weapons grade material which we can't export to a non-nuclear state. So all in all, unlikely to happen, but a good way to pressure the French to deliver on time.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 12 15:34:01 Australia has a thorough and intelligent process of acquiring submarines: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k870cg2E4LM
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 12 15:44:58 ” There is much at stake for Australia, for our region, and the world. We are living in a time of great uncertainty not seen since the 1930s,” So what is at stake for the World? Climate change? But how will a nukeboat help with that?
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 12 15:50:49 The existential threat that China poses to the world and freedom.
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 12 15:52:51 What about Iran? I thought it was Iran who threatened to kill the world and push everyone into the sea?
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 12 15:57:29 Iran does not have the ability to destroy Western Civilization at large, no. Just a few of its member countries.
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 12 16:09:45 ” Iran does not have the ability to destroy Western Civilization at large, no.” You sure? Wasn’t it the USA or Europe who said that Nato had to deploy a new missile defense system in Europe (near Russia) to protect the world from Iranian missiles? And Netanyahu is saying that Iran has the bomb. He basically draw a cartoon of the Iranian bomb at the UN to prove it.
shannon Member	Sat Jun 12 16:49:06 Paramount get out of this thread. Climate change and Israel FFS.
shannon Member	Sat Jun 12 16:56:49 Seb, why would the UK still be making reactors for submarines they aren't building? But when an order is made they of course reactors will be made. The US Govt has approved in the past UK built nuclear submarines for Canada. Australia would be no different. Although preventing the production and accumulation of fissile material is an important part of this effort, the NPT does not explicitly regulate the production, use, and disposition of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for naval nuclear reactors. The former PM and RAN admirals would know what the treaty prevents. Buying UK built Astute is not one of them.
shannon Member	Sat Jun 12 17:02:17 As for timescales, what do you mean? The first French diesel sub is not due for another 15 years at best. The Australian Govt just announced another $10b on the existing submarine fleet to keep it going longer due to delays in the Attack class programme! Astute can be delivered to Australia in 2025.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 15 05:52:26 Shannon: That's not how things work. The production facilities will pretty soon (if not already) shift to start tooling up for PWR3s. It will not be economic to build PWR2bs once production shifts, and I suspect trying to add more PWR2bs to the order book would shift PWR3 timescales to the right, which MOD will have zero tolerance for. "The US Govt has approved in the past UK built nuclear submarines for Canada" The Upholder class was diesel electric. The proposed Trafalgar based bid version for the cancelled Canada class was in part rejected for the requirement to secure US approval for tech transfer (which was never asked for nor given to my knowledge as the competition never got to that stage); but the PWR2s were mostly UK IP and don't use weapons grade fissile material. The difference between PWR2 and PWR3 is that the level of enrichment for PWR2 is not high enough to be used in weapons, whereas PWR3 reportedly is (this removes refueling requirement for more life extension). So fuel assemblies for PWR3 become very tricky indeed if we allow international transfers. On the one hand one can argue they are marine reactor fuel and so exempt from NPT, but doing so then makes it near impossible for hard physical controls to be imposed on nuclear supply chains as we set the precedent for international transfer of weapons grade material on the basis of use. It would then become extraordinarily difficult to build support for non proliferation efforts. Russia can build a nuclear submarine for Iran and transfer it "fuel assemblies" giving Iran a near overnight breakout capability. Indeed Iran can argue it is enriching to weapons grade to make a reactor, which currently it can't credibly do. My guess is that the Americans will not want to allow that precident to be set (also if anyone is going to be supplying the Aussies with subs, I'm pretty sure they would want it to be the US defence companies). So, assuming we have the capacity to economically viably build new pwr2/bs to the Australian without creating risk to the Dreadnaught programme, we could at least arguably transfer the sub weapons grade material needed for their fuel assemblies. However, that again sets a bad precedent as 20%+ enriched HEU is trivially processible to weapons grade, so again I suspect it will earn the opposition of the US who are very well placed to block it, simply to avoid giving Iran or others excuses. "Astute can be delivered to Australia in 2025" Go and have a look at the times between Astutes being laid down, launched and commissioned. If you laid down an Astute today, it wouldn't be launched by 2025. The current UK production run isn't finished yet, so you'd be talking about setting up a whole new production line and staffing it. Modern nuclear submarines aren't liberty ships you can hack together with commodity steel and fit out with reciprocating stream engine.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 15 05:52:26 Shannon: That's not how things work. The production facilities will pretty soon (if not already) shift to start tooling up for PWR3s. It will not be economic to build PWR2bs once production shifts, and I suspect trying to add more PWR2bs to the order book would shift PWR3 timescales to the right, which MOD will have zero tolerance for. "The US Govt has approved in the past UK built nuclear submarines for Canada" The Upholder class was diesel electric. The proposed Trafalgar based bid version for the cancelled Canada class was in part rejected for the requirement to secure US approval for tech transfer (which was never asked for nor given to my knowledge as the competition never got to that stage); but the PWR2s were mostly UK IP and don't use weapons grade fissile material. The difference between PWR2 and PWR3 is that the level of enrichment for PWR2 is not high enough to be used in weapons, whereas PWR3 reportedly is (this removes refueling requirement for more life extension). So fuel assemblies for PWR3 become very tricky indeed if we allow international transfers. On the one hand one can argue they are marine reactor fuel and so exempt from NPT, but doing so then makes it near impossible for hard physical controls to be imposed on nuclear supply chains as we set the precedent for international transfer of weapons grade material on the basis of use. It would then become extraordinarily difficult to build support for non proliferation efforts. Russia can build a nuclear submarine for Iran and transfer it "fuel assemblies" giving Iran a near overnight breakout capability. Indeed Iran can argue it is enriching to weapons grade to make a reactor, which currently it can't credibly do. My guess is that the Americans will not want to allow that precident to be set (also if anyone is going to be supplying the Aussies with subs, I'm pretty sure they would want it to be the US defence companies). So, assuming we have the capacity to economically viably build new pwr2/bs to the Australian without creating risk to the Dreadnaught programme, we could at least arguably transfer the sub weapons grade material needed for their fuel assemblies. However, that again sets a bad precedent as 20%+ enriched HEU is trivially processible to weapons grade, so again I suspect it will earn the opposition of the US who are very well placed to block it, simply to avoid giving Iran or others excuses. "Astute can be delivered to Australia in 2025" Go and have a look at the times between Astutes being laid down, launched and commissioned. If you laid down an Astute today, it wouldn't be launched by 2025. The current UK production run isn't finished yet, so you'd be talking about setting up a whole new production line and staffing it. Modern nuclear submarines aren't liberty ships you can hack together with commodity steel and fit out with reciprocating stream engine.
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 07:07:49 The Reagan Administration approved the sale of SSNs to Canada. Reagan himself personally met with the Canadian PM to communicate approval. Australia has budgeted $A90 billion for construction of 12 diesel boats. That’s £50 billion. Lifetime operating costs are budgeted at a further $A135 billion, or £75 billion. Are you seriously suggesting that the BAE cannot build 12 Astute with a budget of £50 billion? And not make a profit? PWR2 uses HEU. That’s why they have a operational life of 25 years without refuelling. Anson was launched in April. There is a spot to lay down another Astute keel at Furness. Australia could take Agincourt in 2025. With another keel laid for the RN this year, delivery in 2028 or so. Two Dreadnought are already under construction. Adding another Astute now would not change anything. The FTA with Australia would pale against a £50 submarine order. Add associated training costs and there’s more money to be made for the UK defence system. Australian nuclear submarine base facing both the Indian and Pacific oceans, jointly operated by the RAN and RN would open up enormous force multiplier for both nations.
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 07:18:06 https://youtu.be/wjxM6unonVY Australian media pulling no punches on the French fiasco.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 16 17:25:02 What Reagan personally offered isn't really relevant now 35-40 years later. Reagan didn't have nuclear proliferation as his major problem, he had building up a large navy to pressure the Russians. Astute unit costs are £1.9bn a boat in current prices. But thats based on current production run etc. If you need to increase production capacity and build a new production line, then overhead costs go down. If on the other hand you can extend production run, then the cost go down, but the resources on the astute production line are supposed to be retooling for Dreadnought. "PWR2 uses HEU. That’s why they have a operational life of 25 years without refuelling." Yes, that's what I've just said. HEU is anything above 20%. Weapons grade is above 80 (typically 90%) enriched. PWR-3 is supposed to use higher enrichment (weapons grade, or at least enough to make a bomb, albeit not optimal) in fuel assemblies to avoid having to do a core replacement for life extension (it's true that on spec, astutes and vanguards don't require refueling during their service life, but that's in part because whereas you'd typically do a life extension and refit, it's prohibitively costly to refuel the ship so the reactor life becomes the main limiting factor). "Australia could take Agincourt in 2025. With another keel laid for the RN this year, delivery in 2028 or so." So... the idea is that the RN should accept a further temporary reduction in its already reduced Astute fleet to enable Australia to build one sub. But you are missing the point, the "spot" you mention is going to go to a Dreadnaughts hull - the whole timeline is set to to keep barrow in Furness fully occupied. It's the same production capacity being used to deliver astute and Dreadnought. So either the UK Astute program will be set back, or the Dreadnought program will be set back, or the Aussies will get their subs later, or a huge investment in additional production capacity to have more subs on the go at any given time is needed, and even then some things aren't solved by throwing money at them. MoD is never going to agree to that the first two. The Aussies won't go for the third You need a second production line, so huge investment. "The FTA with Australia would pale against" Well yes. The FTA with Australia is virtually worthless. But we aren't going to get a £50bn order for astutes.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 16 17:25:37 *If you need to increase production capacity and build a new production line, then overhead costs go *up*.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 16 17:27:59 I'm also not really sure of the utility of a base in Australia for our subs. They have the range and speed anyway. They'll be going where the carrier goes and haven't we got a base for that? Also I think we have used of Diego Garcia already.
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 17:52:51 The long term trend is towards CANZUK. Australia and New Zealand are essentially one country in trade, residency rights and defence. The UK is being added with FTA and mutual recognition of qualifications and working rights.
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 18:06:25 Only two Dreadnought will be built at a time. There are three slots at Furness. Production facilities do not need expanding. And so what if they do? The money is there... Agamemnon will be launched next year. And then Agincourt in 2024. The USA has a closer military alliance now with ITAR exemptions for the UK and Australia. https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/change-itar-for-aussies-brits-its-overdue/
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 18:09:19 You are not sure of the utility of bases in the Pacific and Indian Oceans?? Get real. The RN would jump at the chance. The FTA removes tariffs and quotas and work restrictions. Millions of people will benefit...
shannon Member	Wed Jun 16 18:12:09 The UK and Australia are on the same side Seb. Both are in Her Majesty’s service. No one is losing anything, we are both gaining by continuing the Astute production run.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 17 02:44:43 Shannon: "And so what if they do? The money is there." So you need to build additional plant, and then staff it. There isn't a pool of experienced workers, so they need to be trained, which takes time,and then make redundant at the end of the Aussie production run, because you are running batches in parallel not series. And that's through the entire supply chain. Our entire defence industry has been struggling with how to manage boom/bust production for decades now, and simply throwing money at it isn't a solution, particularly as workers have got wise to specialising in industries and skills applicable to a single production run and finding they are out of a job when the order book runs dry. And trying to surge the workforce trends to reduce quality control. BTW Launched and commissioning are different things. The gap between commissioning and launch is fitting out - thats part of the production process. They roll them out into a basin (that's launch) and then there's still about one to two years of work for completion. "You are not sure of the utility of bases in the Pacific and Indian Oceans" Yeah, we have access to facilities already, so... plus (especially with your delaying the astute order) our subs will be fully committed providing escort for the vanguards into/out of patrol areas, countering the Russian patrols, and carrier escort. Unless we want to base the entire carrier group there, not much point having subs based there. And we have used of other basing sites for the carrier strike group. "The UK and Australia are on the same side Seb" Yes, and? As for the FTA, it's economic impact is tiny and will probably cause further damage to the UK agricultural sector. Millions of people will benefit, just... not very much. As you say, a submarine order would be larger.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 17 05:58:27 Well, wake me up when the Aussies actually cancel the contract with France and go back to tender.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: