Like I said you know very little about Australian politics with a statement like that. I think you need to be more concerned with the return of a Labour Party in the UK.

That individual’s posts always seek to undermine Western military developments, and AUKUS is just the current target. I have long doubted any real connection to the UK.

"That individual’s posts always seek to undermine Western military developments,"

No - I point out what is actually happening

I have bemoaned the dreadfully slow delivery of more UK F-35; the lack of investment in SSN's, and the desperate need for for more Poseidon's

I also post items such as the news today that the MoD are now forecasting the AJAX APV's will be 17 years late. That is a fact - if you want mindless cheerleading go to Jet Blast

Bah you make !!!! and talk trash. Your a conservative shill who doesn't know !!!! about australian politics, I mean cant even spell the labor parties name correctly

Aways nice to hear the authentic voice of a True Australian Ratty!!! :ok:

It was a video interview. I can't find it restated in text. I heard it as just the first one was secondhand? I may have been wrong. every reference I now googled, points to more being secondhand.
They talk about some secondhand and some new. The first secondhand has 20 years life left and may have been where I was confused..
As to vertical launch I think they mean the block 5 extension is out, in the new builds.
"The Virginia Class submarine is already heavily armed. Each boat can carry up to 37 torpedo-sized weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles. Twelve of these slots are in two vertical launch systems (VLS), known as the Virginia Payload Tubes. The new Block V (5) batch of submarines will add 28 more slots in its VLS. This is an increase of 76% of torpedo-sized weapons."

Being a sceptic, it doesn't exclude the possibility of the 'new' being a PR exercise?

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 would take them at their word of 33 years. Until you see them getting more service life. As to gentle life, that hasn't been our way previously. What I am taken aback with. Is the secrecy over cost. 268-368 to 2050, without a breakdown to be seen. When it is nearly a full year revenue, It should be accounted for, $486.3 billion in 2019–20

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.

Found elsewhere - it would appear the loge of the current reactors is designed around the life of the boat - not the other way round…

“Sub vet here, currently work for the Navy maintaining them. A submarine life is calculated based on its number of dives. Very much like airplanes. When they design the reactor for a submarine and its expected life they calculate how many dives they think they need to get out of it and design a reactor life based on this. For the los angeles class this meant an expected once in a lifetime refuel. For the newer virginia class, better fuel loading technology means they expect to go the entire submarine life without refueling. But the hull and expected number of missions stayed about the same.

There are examples of ships that had to be retired with a lot of fuel left, because the hull was evaluated to be done. And it’s possible to use that reactor still. But once a ship is scheduled for decommissioning, the first thing they do is start cannibalizing components for use elsewhere in the fleet. So keeping high performance reactors and their high performance components operating just to make power would not make good sense. Something like 60 percent of the entire us navy maintenance budget is for submarines alone.

In a perfect world reactor life would be managed to match the hull life exactly. And most of the time it does come very close, because as the boat gets old they start managing it tighter and tighter. But failing that, our next priority is to manage our resources to keep the other boats ready to go and repaired quickly. And that means getting the old ones decommisioned.”

Also interesting is this paper, particularly concerning testing, which explains the issues with aging Life of Ship reactors.

https://uploads.fas.org/media/Life-o...ed-Testing.pdf

It's a mix of different life-enders. Overall, you have an expected in-service life of the boat (which is usually exceeded). Within that life you tend to have separate drivers for different elements of the boat.

The hull fatigue life is driven by the total number of dives - but it's a complex equation that changes depending on the operational use of the boat. Slow dives to deepish depths will have less of an effect than fast changes of depth across a number of depths.

Then you have the core/fuel life. That tends to be based on assumptions as to time spent at various power levels - with a bit of non-linear reactor chemistry thrown in.

Then you have componentry within the NSRP which can be subject to embrittlement, fatigue or other degradation - some of which can be predicted, some not. Because its within the RC its a beggar to fix, so usually means end of life. Lots of the PWR1 boats suffered these sorts of issues.

Finally, you get into things like cable life. Cable insulation has a finite life - once you need to start recabling a boat, the sheer cost of it is usually a life ender too.

None of the above are particularly interrelated, so its a complex balance across many factors.

so, being slightly cynical, they'll pass on the older Block 3s as they start because coming maintenance intensive, meaning they'll be able to concentrate their cash and manpower keeping the Block 4/5s etc serviceable and at sea. But the sale price should be much lower as a result.

Sort of like why old Jaguars and Mercedes go at such low second hand prices. Great cars - but the running costs can be crippling if something breaks so you have to factor it into the price you pay.

Just to put some more context on these issues, as they stand right now (and attract some interest in AU for the desired used Virginia SSN to be bought). There are three principal factors in play over the next few years:

It will take five years for two shipbuilders that build Virginia-class attack boats to deliver two submarines a year, according to US Navy’s estimates of production schedule. The two yards are currently on a pace to deliver about 1.2 submarines a year.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...041168389.html

Vice Admiral Mead has confirmed that all 6 Collins submarines will go through the LOTE. It looks like the aim is to have 8 submarines (with the first 2 Virginia’s) ASAP. It’s likely that the third Virginia will arrive late 2030’s as the first Collins (Farncomb) is decommissioned circa 2038.

🇨🇦.Royal Canadian Navyt wants to buy up to 12 conventional submarines to replace the 4 ex-RN Victoria class.

The budget for Canadian Patrol Submarine Project is approx $60Bn

​​​​​​​https://www.standard-freeholder.com/...dustry-sources

​​​​​​​Isn't it a bit late for April Fool entries ?

Canada planning a purchase of 12 subs for around $60 billion.

So what options are on the table?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...588317184.html
​​​​​​​

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...in-development

Seabed Espionage Variant Of Virginia Class Submarine In Development

Seabed warfare was once an obscure topic mainly reserved for national security circles, espionage thrillers, and websites like the one you are reading. In recent years, it has exploded into the global consciousness. This has been spurred primarily by Russia's clear designs on being able to wreak havoc on critical undersea infrastructure. China is also active in the area, as well. Now, the events surrounding the Nordstream 2 pipeline have made this realm of warfare a household conversation.

Foreign actors are not alone when it comes to seabed warfare capabilities. The United States also has abilities in this shadowy domain and it looks like it is now working to expand those via a customized version of the Virginia class nuclear fast attack submarine.....

Today, the U.S. already has one submarine that was purpose-built for these types of tasks, the highly modified Seawolf class USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), which you can read more about here and here. This boat, which is markedly longer than the two other Seawolf class submarines, is among America's most prized weapons and is known to have accomplished critical but highly classified operations in its now nearly 20-year-long career.

Now there appears to be a new seabed warfare super-sub in the works in the form of the aforementioned one-off Virginia class variant.

In a slide (seen at 22:00 in the video below) from a presentation given to the Connecticut Business and Industry Alliance's "Economic Summit + Outlook" by Electric Boat president Kevin Graney on Jan. 21, 2022, we see a rendering of a new Virginia class variant. In the presentation, he details the future evolution of the Virginia class SSN and clearly states that a one-of-a-kind seabed warfare capable sub-type is being developed.

Graney says: "We're developing in the third picture a seabed warfare variant and this ship is designed to interact with the sea floor. And this design we'll repurpose some of those missile tubes that I refer to in the VPM [Virginia Payload Module] design to perform those missions."....

The Navy's latest budget request for the 2024 Fiscal Year, released last month, clearly outlines that funding is being requested for this unique variant. It also gives information on what its adapted mission section will be called:

"FY 2024 funds two VIRGINIA Class Submarines (VCS) in different configurations; one is the Modified VIRGINIA Class Subsea and Seabed Warfare (Mod VA SSW) and the second is Virginia Payload Module (VPM); funding also provides Advance Procurement (AP) for future SSNs and EOQ [economic order quantities] funds for a future multi-year procurement."

So it looks like the modification for this subclass is called Virginia Subsea and Seabed Warfare or Mod VA SSW......

It isn't clear exactly how long it would take to fully develop and deploy this new Virginia sub-class, but the Navy expects to take delivery of the first Block V boat in 2028. So, one would think it may be possible by end of the decade or early in the 2030s, depending on how far along the concept is already, for the modified Block V sub-type to arrive. If it were to enter service in 2030, the USS Jimmy Carter would be 25 years old at that time....

Australia
 

The ADF did look at B-21 but opted for Lon range stand off ASMs instead

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...TEFYIKCpklx36g

cheers

8.46 The Review has undertaken detailed discussions in Australia and the United States in relation to the B-21 Raider as a potential capability option for Australia.
In light of our strategic circumstances and the approach to Defence strategy and capability development outlined in this Review, we do not consider the B-21 to
be a suitable option for consideration for acquisition.