![]() |
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. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11130180)
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. I do believe IAEA are right to be concerned about proliferation of HEU around the world |
the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past. |
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
|
Meanwhile, this is worth watching on the UK and AUKUS.
|
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 11130116)
the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.
(Banter!) |
Originally Posted by pba_target
(Post 11130406)
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 |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 11130227)
Come on! Somebody has got to bite on this one.
|
Originally Posted by Flap Track 6
(Post 11130505)
Our American friends name ships after old battles they lost (Bunker Hill).
|
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) |
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!
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11131012)
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 |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11130180)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11132237)
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.
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. |
Has France not gone down a similar route? https://nonproliferation.org/civilian-heu-france/ https://fissilematerials.org/blog/20...tor_and_f.html |
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 |
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.
|
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11132256)
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.
|
|
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 11132294)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/american-dominated-panel-advising-nuclear-submarine-fleet/100567052
NZ apparently wants in https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...25-p592tr.html Tell NZ to go take a cold shower. Banning nukes and little to contribute doesn't cut it...they can't have it both ways! [or maybe Ardern can] |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.