AUKUS

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by ORAC

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ear-submarines

IAEA chief: Aukus could set precedent for pursuit of nuclear submarines

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said other states could follow Australia’s example and seek to build nuclear-powered submarines, raising serious proliferation and legal concerns.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said during a visit to Washington that he had set up a special team to look into the nuclear safeguards and legal implications of the Aukus partnership announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

If the plan is carried through, it would be the first time a non-nuclear weapons state has acquired nuclear-powered submarines. It reflects a grey area in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows fissile material to be removed from IAEA safeguards for such purposes…..

Not quite - and wait, who's that helping the Brazilians? Zut alors, quelle dommage etc...

PROSUB Milestone: Brazilian Navy Approves Basic Design of SN-BR Submarine - Naval News

[ORAC]

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

Everyone seems to forget the russians have more HEU reactors than everyone else combine. So as users of HEU we US, UK, Russia / Soviet Union, its believed that india currently does and france has previous. In 2013 russia had 56 HEU plants

I do believe IAEA are right to be concerned about proliferation of HEU around the world

[Herod]

the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.

Come on! Somebody has got to bite on this one.

[golder]

I'm starting to feel sorry for them. They are so butt hurt, their roids are bleeding. I'm just glad their 'Napoleon complex' arrogance, is carrying them through this difficult period. France has has a lot of disputed over the last couple of years. Sadly I can't see that changing into the future. A term 'born that way' fits

[golder]

Meanwhile, this is worth watching on the UK and AUKUS.

You Tube

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Originally Posted by fab777

the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.

I mean, you'd have to have a glorious military past to name things after, in order to not feel the need to do that?

(Banter!)

[rattman]

Originally Posted by pba_target

I mean, you'd have to have a glorious military past to name things after, in order to not feel the need to do that?

(Banter!)

They did have one success the sufferen is that ship that killed nelson, so yeah they are kinda naming ships after their past glories if you completely ignore the the rest of the battle of trafalger

[Flap Track 6]

Originally Posted by Herod

Come on! Somebody has got to bite on this one.

Our American friends name ships after old battles they lost (Bunker Hill).

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Flap Track 6

Our American friends name ships after old battles they lost (Bunker Hill).

Or friendly ships they accidently sunk ie USS Canberra

[ORAC]

No, it’s not a SNL skit, she’s a Trump supporting commentator…….

(Making a case not to get involved in more overseas alliances and adventures)

Twitter

[ChrisJ800]

Thats a tongue in cheek video, see the other thread about its context. I just watched this vid on the new AARGM - ER and hope we in Oz can get these as part of AUKUS. Fits well with our F35 and Super Hornet assets!

You Tube

[FakePilot]

Originally Posted by ORAC

No, it’s not a SNL skit, she’s a Trump supporting commentator…….

(Making a case not to get involved in more overseas alliances and adventures)

https://twitter.com/warmatters/statu...582626818?s=21

You probably doubled her audience posting this on PPRUNE.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

Naval reactors do use more highly enriched fuel than most civil power ones, but I think describing it as 'weapons grade' is a bit of an exaggeration. Surely all Uranuim reactors rely on U235 to fission?

Not so sure about American submarine reactors, but the Astute class SSN is the first RN nuclear boat to be designed not to need refuelling. This is a big thing as it means a massive refit that takes the boat out of service for years is no longer needed. They have the same PWR 2 reactor as the Vanguard class SSBN (which have needed refuelling) but with a new reactor core that is designed to last longer.

Has France not gone down a similar route?

I was slightly surprised to recently learn that Australia has no nuclear industry, apart from Uranuim mines. The only reactor is a small one used for research and making radionuclides for scientific and medical purposes.

[Gnadenburg]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

I was slightly surprised to recently learn that Australia has no nuclear industry, apart from Uranuim mines. The only reactor is a small one used for research and making radionuclides for scientific and medical purposes.

Worth reading easily researchable information of Australia's ambitions for nuclear weapons in the sixties and how we fit in with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty politics and processes of the time.

The refuelling of reactors is one reason why there was no option of a French nuclear submarine. The loss of capability sovereignty in the future, to both the politics of the day and cost, is completely at the whim of the French. Versus hopefully lesser risks with traditional allies such as the UK and US.

[ORAC]

Has France not gone down a similar route?

https://uploads.fas.org/2016/12/Fran...Propulsion.pdf

https://nonproliferation.org/civilian-heu-france/

https://fissilematerials.org/blog/20...tor_and_f.html

[rattman]

Another thing to take into account is the a ANSTO (Australian nuclear sciences and technology organisation) developed what is beleived to be the most efficient means of enrichment. Its currently licensed to exclusively the the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa...ser_excitation

[WE Branch Fanatic]

All this talk of submarines has overshadowed other significant aspects of the AUKUS agreement. Intelligence and technology sharing are also parts of adapting to changing Global politics.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

All this talk of submarines has overshadowed other significant aspects of the AUKUS agreement. Intelligence and technology sharing are also parts of adapting to changing Global politics.

The submarine was a justifiable headline of the announcement, while there was also a few smaller announcement like shyborg/loyal wingman, joint hypersonic and PRSM development programs. Guessing there will be a lot of extra stuff currently in discussion. Like apparently the discussion about permanent basing of US marine in Northern QLD is back on the cards

[rattman]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-...leet/100567052


NZ apparently wants in

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...25-p592tr.html