Australia Navy Australia SSN Program

[Gary]

wonder if they will aiming for the block III, it would be good ability of land strike for RAN.

There's no more block III in the production line. All are now block IV produced by GD electric boats

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667009830740180992

wait, it cannot be refueled?

 

[Paro]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667009830740180992

wait, it cannot be refueled?

Nope. Virginia class reactors is specifically designed to last a whole lifetime of the hull. Afterwards the hull section is cut out and sent to storage. Usually subs need a refueling after 15-20 years

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667009830740180992

wait, it cannot be refueled?

To add to what Paro said,

The reactor is designed for 33 years (sometimes quoted as 30+ for rounding down with margin of safety etc) and does not need refuelling within that period as:

A) It is highly enriched Uranium (HEU) that provides this longer cycle duration to begin with

(LEU like what France uses needs refuelling every 10 years or so, can read more here: https://defencehub.live/threads/indian-nuclear-submarine-programs-ssbn-ssn.8844/page-5#post-254341). France more or less did that option deliberately for reasons explained there.


B) It is run at much lower capacity factor than say a nuclear power plant (or the nuclear reactors on say a ship, where say mid life refuelling is not as big a penalty). This ties in with the "overdesign" of point C.

Thus this helps the design of extending the refuelling cycle duration to what you want when that becomes a dominant design driver.


C) Importantly, the reactor (fuel amount, moderator, geometry etc) is "overdesigned" with the final years (neutron) flux supply in mind and backworked to what is then needed at the start.

The overdesign that results from this is balanced by inclusion of burnable neutron poison at the start in the reactor (to keep neutron flux at the optimal design level for the power output)

These neutron poisons (essentially long term absorbers similar to control rods which are for more transient control) are used up over time and the two effects (over neutron production and extra neutron absorption) essentially always cancel each other during whole lifetime to produce a steady net flux, i.e they both reduce at same rate (that stems from the logarithmic equation from how half lives etc. work).

I made a little graphic to accompany this:

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670063336065474560

 

[Jammer]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847198170981265756

The plan was a botched one from the start.These idiots really expected the aussies to run a fleet of 5 to 8 SSNs.

 

[SilverMachine]

Yeah, I've kinda thought that way from the start.

Like, no doubt we need better subs. But aren't these things going to be better in US hands than ours if any conflict breaks out anyway, considering our dumbass "no nuclear weapons for us!" stance?

We do need something better than our diesel bullshit, we're going to have to grow up and join the...19-fucking-60s at some point. But in some hypothetical existential showdown, these things are better with the Americans where they can actually be used to their potential with the firepower they're designed for.

 

[Jammer]

Yeah, I've kinda thought that way from the start.

Like, no doubt we need better subs. But aren't these things going to be better in US hands than ours if any conflict breaks out anyway, considering our dumbass "no nuclear weapons for us!" stance?

We do need something better than our diesel bullshit, we're going to have to grow up and join the...19-fucking-60s at some point. But in some hypothetical existential showdown, these things are better with the Americans where they can actually be used to their potential with the firepower they're designed for.

The deal was in a way US navy trying to get more subs against china at the expense of the Australians.The french proposal was a costly one but atleast Australia would have recieved 12 boats without any massive upgrade to infrastructure. Now they arent gonna get a new sub till 2034 with the first SSN- A will only enter service by early 2040. Contrary to the popular talking point of nuclear subs being "cheaper option "than carriers Brazil is spending 3.8 billion on constructing their nuclear sub. Indian SSN phase 1 for two nuke subs are estimated at 5 billion. So imagine the prize of 3 used Virginia and SSN aukus that is going to be made in Australia is going to be.

 

[Afif]

They will just buy it off the shelf. at first stage few Virginia. Later several SSN-AUKUS from UK.

 

[SilverMachine]

I mean, 2034 doesn't even seem *that far off* for an undertaking of this magnitude. I don't mind the timeframe so much, a decade out, whatever, if that's what it takes that's what it takes.

I just can't personally get my head around how these things would be better served (from an American perspective for once) in Australian hands supporting American vessels against, say, China (elephant in the room no doubt), than just fielding them as part of the US fleet to begin with. *Shrugs* Layman take on it no doubt, maybe I'm missing something. But unless we're going to take advantage of their full capabilities by starting up a nuke weapon program, just kinda seems like...if WWIII breaks out, just have U.S. subs based in our waters ready to go. They've got the boom-booms, we don't.