Originally Posted by
rattman
Interview I saw said 13 years old, which whey would have be the oldest they could if they come in 2030 and are expected to serve to 2050. Also made a comment about no VPM's so they can be prioritised to the US subs, I would imaged the 2 major differences between the block 3's and blk 4 and 5. Block 4 has been refined and needs 1 less maintainance period compared to a block 3 and the 5 has refit and VPM's advantage. Maybe these situations are why the US have agreed to second hand block 3.
Maybe 20 which would still put it around early block 3's might be doable as the subs probably wont be have as hard of service life in australian service as they would in USN they maybe able to push the 35 years on the reactors to 40 +
I know next to nothing about nuclear reactors, but I assume with a nuclear powered engine it doesn't matter how hard or easy you use it, the nuclear fuel decays at a certain rate whether you use it to power the submarine or not. The reactor power is sort of fixed and only modulated by lowering/raising control rods that in effect just waste the energy that is produced if lowered.
But, I may be totally wrong.
Edit 23.3.23 - Have rethought this and am wrong - if reduced volume of chain reaction with control rods, then less nuclear fuel is consumed.