Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

You would need to add some massive (floating) doors. An under water accsess would also be very cool (Thunderbird style) but this would need sone protection too.
 
Nicknick said:
You would need to add some massive (floating) doors. An under water accsess would also be very cool (Thunderbird style) but this would need sone protection too.
Click to expand...
I'd argue fine nets for the underwater protection. Shockwaves can pass through solid doors and you're going to get some weird effects with different shockwave speeds in air and in water on one-piece doors.

Fine enough that any drones that could fit through the net would not pack a usable explosive payload even in a swarm.

Now you gotta send combat divers, and that raises the stakes of the mission immensely.
 
Rex Patrick's submission to the Public AUKUS inquiry (public enquiry because the Australian government refuses to discuss the AUKUS treaty in any meaningful way or even allow a parliamentary debate, obfuscating and hiding information especially about the processing and storage of nuclear waste that will be generated by the program).
View: https://youtu.be/STBMoBSFN_c?si=D4fFkfflVhSZDBcu
 
jeffb said:
Rex Patrick's submission to the Public AUKUS inquiry (public enquiry because the Australian government refuses to discuss the AUKUS treaty in any meaningful way or even allow a parliamentary debate, obfuscating and hiding information especially about the processing and storage of nuclear waste that will be generated by the program).
Click to expand...
Well, the US has stated that the Virginias will go back to the US to be scrapped (and reactor vessels buried at Hanford).

At worst Oz will have some low-level waste that can be incinerated and vitrified.

Yall have about 40-50 years before the AUKUS ships will be getting scrapped. I'm sure there's some hard-rock salt mines you can use for geological repository.
 
This 'public inquiry' is being funded by an anti-nuclear lobby group.

I mean just read their submission to Parliament. China is too strong so bend over and stop resisting them, don't bother trying to defend Taiwan or Australia.

Although the US remains by far the predominant military power in the world, it has not demonstrated a credible track record of success in its many interventions and conflicts. Successive US war games have consistently shown that the US and its allies are most unlikely to be able to defeat China should hostilities occur in China’s region. Today, China has three aircraft carriers along the western Pacific coast, with more to come. China also possesses Dongfeng-31AG intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 12,000 kilometres, sixth-generation aircraft and more than 70% of the world’s drone production capacity. The US and its allies have no realistic possibility of defeating China (short of mutually assured nuclear annihilation).
Click to expand...

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/142266/html/

Meanwhile AUKUS nuclear submarines remains popular in Australia with 68% in favour or strongly in favour and only 29% somewhat against or strongly against with 2% undecided and 1% don't care. That amount in favour is up from 28% in favour, 20% opposed, 32% don't care, and 20% don't know in 2023. It suggests almost all Australians now feel informed enough to have an opinion and the debate has led 3/4's of the don't know or don't care to now be in favour of it.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publi...aukus-support-holds-firm-for-the-defence-deal
 
Last edited:
The reactor cores are sealed with Australia not having access, Australia is responsible for the low level waste it generates in service (e.g. tools, clothing, filters) as well as the waste from dismantling the subs at the end of their life and the Intermediate-Level Waste of the reactor compartments when scrapped to comply with non-proliferation treaties including undertaking that they will not seek to reprocess any acquired nuclear material either for fresh submarine fuel or weapons. Australia will not be responsible for storing and disposing of the waste of the Virginia class submarines it acquires from the US or any visiting British or American submarines.

The current nuclear waste inventory of Australia as of 2024 produced to comply with IAEA regulations was:
1,310 m3 of Intermediate, 3,672 m3 of low level waste.
The amount of waste expected to be generated over the next 50 years from the lifetime of AUKUS as well as civilian reactor programs, hospital waste, etc is 1,193 m3 of Intermediate, 4,991 m3 of low level waste

This compares to the 2021 inventory where Australia had 2,062 m3 of Intermediate and 2,487 m3 of low level waste in storage.

https://www.industry.gov.au/publica...tory-radioactive-waste-2024/summary-inventory
 
Scott Kenny said:
That is not what was said at the start of the process.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons why a growing number of people here want a proper parliamentary debate.

But since the government refuses to hold a proper enquiry or be forthcoming about what's actually going on, concerned citizens are being forced to hold their own public enquiry in order to increase public awareness of how badly they're being misled on this boondoggle.

https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/#about
 
Last edited:
Nicknick said:
This five square meters of low level and intermediate waste shouldn't be a hughe problem in coutry of that size...
Click to expand...

In reality, no it shouldn't be a problem even for a small island state like UK, let alone continent-sized Australia. And that's even when talking about actual high-level waste.

But a lot of the anti-nuclear hysteria surrounding these programs (whether military or civilian) has rarely if ever concerned itself with reality. I'm willing to bet the majority of them still imagine nuclear waste as green goop oozing out of a barrel.
 
WatcherZero said:
Australia is responsible for the low level waste it generates in service (e.g. tools, clothing, filters) as well as the waste from dismantling the subs at the end of their life and the Intermediate-Level Waste of the reactor compartments when scrapped to comply with non-proliferation treaties including undertaking that they will not seek to reprocess any acquired nuclear material either for fresh submarine fuel or weapons. Australia will not be responsible for storing and disposing of the waste of the Virginia class submarines it acquires from the US
Click to expand...
The last sentence is incorrect. Australia is responsible for the high level nuclear waste from the spent reactor fuel and reactor compartment.

There is a report on how this waste will be handled which the Australian gov has been ordered by courts to release under the FOI act. However the gov is refusing to release the report and is appealing the FOI decision.
 
H_K said:
The last sentence is incorrect. Australia is responsible for the high level nuclear waste from the spent reactor fuel and reactor compartment.
Click to expand...
That is literally not what was announced, the USN was quite clear about maintaining US control of the reactors post-retirement.
 
The IAEA submission on proliferation by Australia said it will not retain nuclear material from any submarine not built in Australia.
 
WatcherZero said:
The IAEA submission on proliferation by Australia said it will not retain nuclear material from any submarine not built in Australia.
Click to expand...
No the document does NOT say that. www.asa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/NonProliferation-Factsheet.pdf

Moreover, the AUKUS Atomic energy agreement signed by Australia and the United States explicitly states that "Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants transferred"
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/25-117.2-AUKUS-Defense-Atomic-Energy.pdf

Finally, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Act clearly states that spent fuel from Australian operated submarines will be disposed of in Australia, whereas spent fuel from US and UK operated submarines cannot be disposed there. This is to close a potential loophole where the US/UK might try to ask Australia to handle spent fuel from USN or RAN submarines forward based in Australia. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00091/asmade/text

So please re-read what these documents say. What Australia has committed to is that it won't produce, reprocess or enrich nuclear fuel, and the fuel will stay in the sealed reactors provided by the US & UK for the life of the submarines. After that disposal and storage will be done in Australia, according to IAEA Article 14 rules which are still being negotiated in order to comply with non-proliferation obligations.
 
Last edited:
When originally announced, the Oz Virginias were going to be hauled to Bremerton to be taken apart and have their reactor compartments (or reactor vessels, I'm not clear on that detail) cut out and sent to Hanford with the rest of the scrap reactors.

"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not altered it further."
 
Scott Kenny said:
When originally announced, the Oz Virginias were going to be hauled to Bremerton to be taken apart and have their reactor compartments (or reactor vessels, I'm not clear on that detail) cut out and sent to Hanford with the rest of the scrap reactors.
Click to expand...
IIRC that just speculation by people who were wondering how they planned on meeting non-proliferation obligations. I haven't found any official statements anywhere that the US would take back the Virginia reactors.
 
H_K said:
The last sentence is incorrect. Australia is responsible for the high level nuclear waste from the spent reactor fuel and reactor compartment.
Click to expand...
The image I posted above declaring Australia is responsible for any waste produced decommissioning the submarines is taken directly from the Australian Submarine Authority website, I really don't understand the confusion.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
This is to close a potential loophole where the US/UK might try to ask Australia to handle spent fuel from USN or RAN submarines forward based in Australia.
Click to expand...
Since Stirling will handle intermediate level support for submarines rotating through, do we know what will happen if we have a HMS Tireless situation and what the status of hazardous waste arising from such a situation would be?

Screenshot_20260722_115051_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
Since Stirling will handle intermediate level support for submarines rotating through, do we know what will happen if we have a HMS Tireless situation and what the status of hazardous waste arising from such a situation would be?

View attachment 818542
Click to expand...
Primary loop is rarely radioactive for long, the typical activated isotopes are safe within minutes of reactor shutdown.

You still check the stuff, since it's possible that the water has grabbed some fuel materials. And if it has you have bigger problems than a leaking primary. Like ruptured fuel cladding!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Primary loop is rarely radioactive for long, the typical activated isotopes are safe within minutes of reactor shutdown.

You still check the stuff, since it's possible that the water has grabbed some fuel materials. And if it has you have bigger problems than a leaking primary. Like ruptured fuel cladding!
Click to expand...
The question is, what happens to that material? If for example an Astute experiences a major fault and limps into Stirling, what then? Will the UK be expected to pack up the mess and take it all home?

Briggs point about sealed HEU reactors hits hard here too:
The Tireless incident underscores the fact that a sealed reactor is an asset only as long as its internal systems remain completely defect free. Should a sealed, life-of-type core suffer a premature internal cladding failure or primary circuit defect on our shores, it would be a long, high-risk transfer back to the United Kingdom for a warranty claim.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
The question is, what happens to that material? If for example an Astute experiences a major fault and limps into Stirling, what then? Will the UK be expected to pack up the mess and take it all home?
Click to expand...
If it's not radioactive anymore from a primary leak? who cares?

Else it's low-grade radwaste and you throw it in an incinerator, IIRC.


jeffb said:
Briggs point about sealed HEU reactors hits hard here too:
Click to expand...
So you load the sub onto a lift ship like USS Cole.
 
NUCLEAR STEWARDSHIP AND WASTE
https://www.asa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2025-10/Stewardship_Waste_Fact_Sheet.pdf

How will Australia manageradioactive waste?
As a responsible nuclear steward, Australia willmanage all radioactive waste from its nuclearpowered submarines domestically. This includesradioactive waste with lower levels of radioactivitygenerated by day-to-day submarine operations andmaintenance. And radioactive waste with higherlevels of radioactivity, including spent fuel, which isproduced when submarines are decommissionedat the end of their service life. Australia has safelyand securely managed radioactive waste fordecades, including 70 years of experience managingwaste from facilities like its multi-purpose nuclearreactors at Lucas Heights. Australia will continueto ensure the highest standards of safety, securityand non-proliferation safeguards are applied to thismaterial, in accordance with Australia’s domesticand international obligations, including the Treatyof Rarotonga. All radioactive waste will be managedwithin the framework of Australia’s ComprehensiveSafeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.

Where will Australia store anddispose of radioactive waste?
No decision has been made on a location withinAustralia for the disposal of radioactive waste fromnuclear-powered submarines. Further technical workand consultation is required to determine preferreddisposal pathways. Operational radioactive waste willbe stored on Defence sites in Australia.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom