A great article in the Lowy Institute's  theinterpreter by HENRY STOREY published March 3, 2021:

"Cracks beginning to appear in the Russia-India relationship."

"But Washington’s interests might actually be served by New Delhi and Moscow muddling through."

Since Anthony Galloway's March 2, 2021 Brisbane Times article, (reported here) he has written a confirmatory update of March 3, 2021, that:

"The Morrison government is forging ahead with the $90 billion submarine program, the Department of Defence confirming it has reached a critical deal with French company Naval Group to guarantee 60 per cent of the funding for the project will be spent in Australia." Best to read that whole March 3, article.

So after 3 weeks of customer beatup (?) Australia is, unsurprisingly, sticking with France's Naval Group (Australia) (based at Keswick Adelaide ;) and Port) to build 12 Attack classsubs.

The first of four S-80 Plus is due to be launched in 2021.  It will probably need 2 or 3 years of tests/fine tuning before being commissioned around 2024. Three more will be built -  to make 4 for the Spanish Navy. (see diagram below). The S-80 Plus was/is part of push to a larger more comfortable sub, with longer range and ability to carry more heavywight munitions (torpedos, ASh missiles, mines). For a 3,400 tonne sub it only has a small crew of 32 - so must be a lot of automation and living space per crew member.

Much has been written about Spain’s under construction S-80, now S-80 Plus (aka Isaac Peral) class. Spanish Wikipedia ismuch more detailed. Previous S-80 and/or S-80 Plus articles here at SubMatts were published on:

Jan 20, 2014,  Aug 5, 2014 (on AIP),  May 17, 2016,  Feb 28, 2017 (AIP),  May 23, 2017 (SENER),  May 16, 2018,  May 17, 2018,  Feb 11, 2020 (Part 2) and 
Feb 21, 2021 

Below this article  are some interesting comments by Anonymouses Feb 22 to 27, 2021

SPANISH ALCOHOL REFORMER AIP

The main problem with buoyancy that killed off the S80 design was not the weight of the combat system but the addition of heavy, complex Ethanol reformer AIP. This unique AIP has been many years in development and is the main problem causing the S-80 Plus delay. The main builder Navantia and customer, the Spanish Navy, were (in hindsight)  too ambitious. There were too many firsts, packing so much into the S-80 Plus including the first full US combat system integrated into a “EuroSub”. 

Anonymous advises (words to the effect) there are three companies in Spain involved in Alcohol Reforming for the Subs AIP: 

1.  Abengoa EtOH reformer [Pete comment: “EtOH” means Ethanol Alcohol which we call just “Ethanol”]: this company was awarded the S-80 AIP Reformer. Many problems, but it seems as it is (hopefully) going ahead.

2.- Tecnicas Reunidas ETOH: very competent and experienced Spanish engineering company, with huge oil refinery projects (in the Gulf States , Asia, etc). Contracted by the Spanish Navy as "PLan B" in case Abengoa fails..

3.  SENER CH3OH [CH30H means Methanol] reformer: SENER engineering company is very competent in military projects and world leader in Naval engineering. This company has an agreement with TKMS Germanyto collaborate and promote the Methanol reformer for AIP. They are suggesting that a Methanol reformer could be an alternative to an Ethanol reformer. 

The Spanish Navy and Navantia are fully focused on Ethanol reforming as it is, in fact, a fully Spanish development, either by Abengoa or by Tecnicas Reunidas.
--------------------

According to Anonymous the first two S-80 Plus (S-81 and S-82) will be deployed fitted for, but not with the AIP (confirmed here). This is so AIP development won't continue to delay launch. The first S-80 Plus “Isaac Peral” S-81 is expected to be launched in the Northern Spring 2021 [around April?] depending on Covid!! and then S-82 after that. S-83 and S-84 will be delivered with the full AIP.

MISSION ENVIRONMENT

Anonymous advises (words to the effect). Spain has two very challenging (potential ASW) scenarios: Morocco and Algeria. Both countries are just south of Spain across the Mediterranean and both are involved in an arms race.

Algeria, for instance, now has now six Kilo Subs from Russia. 2 old 877 Kilos and 4 Improved 636 Kilos - see Algerian Navy.

Morocco is exploring the issue of submarines for the Moroccan Navy.  

PETE COMMENT

As part of Spain’s NATO duties it is highly likely its subs will do electronic monitoring and special forces insertion of African coastal countries. Monitoring of non-NATO subs.  Also electronic monitoring (making use of AIP) of more distant Latin American and Middle East counties is possible. Monitoring non-state threats (eg. counter-terrorism, drug, arms and people smuggling) is likely.
----------------

Anonymous advises the Soryu-class submarine involved in the collision with Ocean Artemis is the first of class Soryu. Its name is, of course, Soryu (SS-501) (see SORYU TABLE below).

The collision occured on February 8 or 9 - depending on which side of the Internationa Date Line you're reading.
_____________________

SORYU TABLE
(with old Oyashio and new Taigei classes) as at February 19, 2021. 

Anonymous and Pete

The first of four S-80 Plus is due to be launched in 2021.  It will probably need what is typical for a brand new submarine type, ie. 2 or 3 years of tests, fine tuning and crew training, before being commissioned around 2024. Three more will be built -  to make 4 for the Spanish Navy. (see diagram below). The S-80 Plus was/is part of push to a larger more comfortable sub, with longer range and ability to carry more heavywight munitions (torpedos, ASh missiles, mines). For a 3,400 tonne sub it only has a small crew of 32 - so must be a lot of automation and living space per crew member.

Much has been written about Spain’s under construction S-80, now S-80 Plus (aka Isaac Peral) class. 

Spanish Wikipedia on the S-80 Plus ismuch more detailed. 

Previous S-80 and/or S-80 Plus articles here at SubMatts were published on:

Jan 20, 2014,  Aug 5, 2014 (on AIP),  May 17, 2016,  Feb 28, 2017 (AIP),  May 23, 2017 (SENER),  May 16, 2018,  May 17, 2018,  Feb 11, 2020 (Part 2) and 
Feb 21, 2021 

Below this article  are some interesting comments by Anonymouses Feb 22 to 27, 2021

SPANISH ALCOHOL REFORMER AIP

The main problem with buoyancy that killed off the S80 design was not the weight of the combat system but the addition of heavy, complex Ethanol reformer AIP. This unique AIP has been many years in development and is the main problem causing the S-80 Plus delay. The main builder Navantia and customer, the Spanish Navy, were (in hindsight)  too ambitious. There were too many firsts, packing so much into the S-80 Plus including the first full US combat system integrated into a “EuroSub”. 

Anonymous advises (words to the effect) there are three companies in Spain involved in Alcohol Reforming for the Subs AIP: 

1.  Abengoa EtOH reformer [Pete comment: “EtOH” means Ethanol Alcohol which we call just “Ethanol”]: this company was awarded the S-80 AIP Reformer. Many problems, but it seems as it is (hopefully) going ahead.

2.- Tecnicas Reunidas ETOH: very competent and experienced Spanish engineering company, with huge oil refinery projects (in the Gulf States , Asia, etc). Contracted by the Spanish Navy as "PLan B" in case Abengoa fails..

3.  SENER CH3OH [CH30H means Methanol] reformer: SENER engineering company is very competent in military projects and world leader in Naval engineering. This company has an agreement with TKMS Germanyto collaborate and promote the Methanol reformer for AIP. They are suggesting that a Methanol reformer could be an alternative to an Ethanol reformer. 

The Spanish Navy and Navantia are fully focused on Ethanol reforming as it is, in fact, a fully Spanish development, either by Abengoa or by Tecnicas Reunidas.
--------------------

According to Anonymous the first two S-80 Plus (S-81 and S-82) will be deployed fitted for, but not with the AIP (confirmed here). This is so AIP development won't continue to delay launch. The first S-80 Plus “Isaac Peral” S-81 is expected to be launched in the Northern Spring 2021 [around April?] depending on Covid!! and then S-82 after that. S-83 and S-84 will be delivered with the full AIP.

MISSION ENVIRONMENT

Anonymous advises (words to the effect). Spain has two very challenging (potential ASW) scenarios: Morocco and Algeria. Both countries are just south of Spain across the Mediterranean and both are involved in an arms race.

Algeria, for instance, now has now six Kilo Subs from Russia. 2 old 877 Kilos and 4 Improved 636 Kilos - see Algerian Navy.

Morocco is exploring the issue of submarines for the Moroccan Navy.  

PETE COMMENT

As part of Spain’s NATO duties it is highly likely its subs will do electronic monitoring and special forces insertion of African coastal countries. Monitoring of non-NATO subs.  Also electronic monitoring (making use of AIP) of more distant Latin American and Middle East counties is possible. Monitoring non-state threats (eg. counter-terrorism, drug, arms and people smuggling) is likely.

Spanish subs also help provide security for the autonomous Spanish city of Ceuta (which lies south, across the Med, and actually borders Morocco). Offshore from Ceuta is the uninhabited rocky islet of Perejil whose ownership is disputed by Spain and Morocco. Perejil was the location of a "crisis" in 2002.

----------------

I'm trading in my car for one of these beaut trucks especially from 3:26 :)

Such DIY trucks can exist only in the American Army?

Following on from Spanish submarines have many challenging mission concerns. My thanks to an anonymous person on my sitemeter from Ceuta, Spain (which I surprisingly saw was south across the Med from Spain). He/she prompted me to explore the submarine implications of all of Spain's offshore autonomous cities/islands as well as those Brits in Gibraltar. 

Spain has national interests and duties under NATO that would include such submarine activities as:
-  monitoring threats to Spain's offshore autonomous cities/islands
-  electronic monitoring and special forces insertion of African coastal countries 
-  monitoring of non-NATO subs (eg. Algeria's) but also UK-NATO subs
-  electronic monitoring (one day using AIP) of more distant Middle Eastern countries and I'm guessing Latin America
-  shadowing Russian Kilo subs transiting in/near Spanish territorial waters, and
-  monitoring non-state threats (eg. counter-terrorism, drug, arms and people smuggling).

ALGERIA

Regarding ASW Spanish subs would keep tabs on Algerian subs. Algeria now has six Kilo subs from Russia (including 2 old 877 Kilos and 4 Improved 636 Kilos - see Algerian Navy.)

On the map see Spain's Ceuta and Melilla enclaves bordering northern Morocco. Gibraltar (GB aka UK) above the straits and Spain's Canary Islands west of Morocco.
---  

SPANISH ENCLAVES BORDERING MOROCCO

Morocco is exploring the issue of submarines for the Moroccan Navy. Given all the Morocco-Spanish territorial disputes detailed below, future Moroccan subs could be a real headache for Spain.  

Spanish subs help provide security for the autonomous Spanish city of Ceuta (which lies south, across the Med, and actually borders Morocco - see map above). Offshore from Ceuta is the uninhabited rocky islet of Perejil whose ownership is disputed by Spain and Morocco. Perejil was the location of a "crisis" in 2002.

Spanish submarines, its broader Navy and Armed forces generally would also provide security for the Spanish enclave port city of Melilla also bordering Morocco and east of Ceuta. 

"The government of Morocco has repeatedly called for Spain to transfer the sovereignty of Ceuta and Melilla, along with uninhabited islets such as the islands of Alhucemas, the rock of Vélez and the Perejil island. Spain's position is both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain, and have been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from France in 1956.

CANARY ISLANDS

The Spanish Navy (including subs) and Spanish Airforce also provides security for the Canary Islands. 

The Canary Islands are a Spanish archipelago, 100km west of Morocco. These islands are the southernmost of the autonomous communities of Spain. The Canaries (population just over 2 million) are economically and politically European, and is part of the EU. The islands have 14 seats in the Spanish Senate. 

The Canaries have been of high naval strategic and economic trade importance to Spain since about 1492 and today also for NATO. There are several ports and large airports on the islands.  Because of their location, the islands have historically been considered a bridge between the four continents of Africa, North and South America and Europe.

The international boundary of the Canaries is the subject of dispute between Spain and Morocco. "Morocco's official position is that international laws regarding territorial limits do not authorise Spain to claim seabed boundaries based on the territory of the Canaries, since the Canary Islands enjoy a large degree of autonomy. In fact, the islands do not enjoy any special degree of autonomy as each one of the Spanish regions is considered an autonomous community with equal status to the European ones. The boundary determines the ownership of seabed oil deposits and other ocean resources. Morocco and Spain have been unable to agree on a compromise regarding the territorial boundary, since neither nation wants to cede its claimed right to the vast resources whose ownership depends upon the boundary."

GIBRALTAR

The Strait of Gibraltar, about 13.6km wide is a naval choke point. Whichever country owns Gibraltar can block the strait - especially if Spain owned Gibraltar in the north to compliment its existing ownership of Ceuta at the southern lip of the strait (see map above). The strait remains strategically important, with half the world's seaborne trade passing through it.

Gibraltar is unsurprisingly another point of tension, but this time Spain's opponent is the UK - a nuclear weapons owning P5 power and major NATO "ally". Spanish submarines do, at times, track the movements of UK Royal Navy (RN) subs and ships entering or leaving Gibraltar harbour. Small Spanish government vessels have also been known to "buzz" such shipping and complicate UK SSN docking.

Gibraltar, being a British Overseas Territory, has never been part of the UK (technically speaking). But like the Falkland Islands the UK holds it dear and Gibraltar has major strategic value and economic value. 

Gibraltar of course borders the southern tip of Spain. In 1704, Anglo-Dutch forces captured Gibraltar from Spain during the War of the Spanish Succession. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. During the Napoleonic Wars and WWII Gibraltar was an important base for the  RN as it controlled the entrance and exit to the Mediterranean Sea. 

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory. Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected.

On 31 January 2020, the UK and Gibraltar left the European Union. In December 2020, the UK and Spain agreed in principle to a basis on which the UK and the EU might negotiate terms for Gibraltar to participate in aspects of the Schengen Agreement.
-----------

So thanks to Ceuta's visits, picked up on my sitemeter, I've been most gratefully lured into  exploring a whole "new" geo-political region of interest to submarines. Thankyou Ceuta :)

As indicated in my profile , interests include the British Royal Family. Commonwealth Day, which takes place on March 8th this year, is Covid distanced. 

In the video here and below the senior members of the British Royal Family (minus Harry and Andrew) join the celebrations and speak about why our Commonwealth links are so important. Presented by Anita Rani from Westminster Abbey, the celebration hears voices from across the world alongside music and readings.

Within the video the following senior Royals speak and appear:

4:46 -  Queen Elizabeth II shares her annual address. 

10:52 - the Prince of Wales,

22.28 - the Duchess of Cornwall, 

32:40 - the Countess of Wessex, and

42:30 - the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

But Same Day - The Revenge of Mr Markle and Meg

In 10 hours Harry and Meg (an Ameican divorcee like Wallis a daughter of the American Revolution against the British Crown) will itemize their woes. Woes are with the UK Press and the Royal Family (the so-called "Firm") in a Mega Interview with US Royalty, Oprah, of course. Mr and Mrs Markles' interview will be on commercial TV just about everywhere, and likely on Youtube. Here's a Trailer.

Watch this Space. 

After Trump's years of damaging the US alliance with South Korea, Biden fixes the main  damaging issue in weeks. 

See The Diplomat's (paysite) article, of March 8, 2021, at: 

https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/south-korea-and-us-reach-agreement-on-defense-cost-sharing/

There has been much hype since March 9, 2021, concerning a milestone reached in Indian DRDO's (NMRL's) new air independent propulsion (AIP) technology for submarines. But this is more a "soft" political "launch" to legitimise high funding involved, rather than a "hard" launch of a mature weapons system.

Proof whether this AIP is efficient or safe will require 2 or 3 years of at-sea testing. India may develop this AIP into a viable at-sea system, so this is not to denigrate or dismiss India's achievement.

India's defence establishment has been talking about DRDO AIP (scroll 1/4th way down here) since at least 2014. It must be remembered that Russia, Spain and France have been trying to develop successful second generation AIP for years - without proven at-sea progress. 

On March 9, 2021 DRDO announced:

"DRDO achieved an important milestone in the development of AIP System by proving the land based prototype[artwork below] on 8 March 2021. The plant was operated in endurance mode and max power mode as per user requirements. AIP system is being developed by NMRL DRDO." .

This AIP might first be fitted into the Naval Group Scorpene variant INS Kalvari, during a scheduled, major overhaul, in 2023. The AIP will then, probably need 2 to 3 years of at-sea testing before it can be proven efficient and safe.

The AIP technology in question is called Phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC) with power output listed on July 2, 2020 by Defence Decode as 270kW, which compares well with a TKMS Type 214's AIP producing 240kW.

However there is no indication that explosive Hydrogen storage on is outside the pressure hull (a safety measure on the TKMS Type 212). Its unclear whether Type 214s or Dolphin IIs, in general, have there Hydrogen stored outside the pressure hull?

Model: "Defence Decode, July 2, 2020" carries the caption. "Indigenously developed Air independent propulsion by DRDO, through its NMRL Larsen & Toubro as a development partner (LEAD SYSTEM INTEGRATED). The AIP system is based on Indigenously developed PAFC based technology. Hydrogen and Oxygen are supplied to fuel cells to produce power."

The whole apparatus (see Model above) which will lengthen the sub from 67.6m to 77.6m looks very large (judging by the human dolls for scale) and heavy (perhaps 250 tonnes). When this is retrofitted to the Kalvari class there may be major buoyancy readjustments necessary. Many rearrangements (eg. batteries, solid ballast and air/water/diesel tanks) to rebalance the submarine, may be necessary. A big job for Naval Group and the Indian design and build companies involved.

So this is not to denigrate or dismiss India's achievement. But it will likely take 5 or 6 more years for this DRDO AIP to be fully tested in the critical, operational, at-sea environment.

Video uploaded by Australia's 7NEWs March 3, 2021 (the day after incident):

Drawn from an article in The Diplomat (paysite) March 10, 2021.

"The alleged attackers [of the car with Indian Sikh Australians inside] are believed to be men who strongly identify with India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). As a political party built around an ideology of religious nationalism, the BJP inspires a certain fervor among its supporters that when aroused can be difficult to restrain.

Due to its ideological mission, the BJP government of [Indian Prime Minister] Modi "has little tolerance for dissent. After rushing through new agricultural laws, rather than engage with the farmers’ anxieties and concerns about the potential impact on their livelihoods, the Modi government has instead tried to suppress and denigrate the farmers. The goverment narrative has painted the protesters as Khalistani separatists or other “anti-nationals” — the favored term used for anyone critical of the BJP.  This is creating a further sense of insecurity for Sikhs, and a fear of a similar event to 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom.

...The critical question for the Australian government [including State and Federal Police, and other security, is whether Indian-Australian sectarian political rallies, in Australia, should be permitted].

"Yet due to Canberra’s strong desire to further enhance its relationship with India, and the BJP’s current political dominance, it is unlikely that the Australian government would feel itself capable of saying no should the BJP wish to hold another such event as it did at Sydney’s Olympic Park in 2014. And, of course, due to the global access to information, the BJP’s transnational influence would be impossible to restrict anyway.

Unfortunately, this influence is leading to a new — and mostly unwarranted — image of the Indian diaspora. It’s transforming the public’s perception of the diaspora from a highly successful, cohesive, valued, and law-abiding group into one driven by the political grievances and communal tensions of Indian domestic politics. Were this trajectory to be maintained it would be highly detrimental to the Indian Australian community, and for the broader support within the Australian public for increased ties with India..."

[Issue of interest on sidelines of Quad Summit Talks to be held March 13, 2021]. 

SEE WHOLE THE DIPLOMAT PAYSITE ARTICLE HERE

Below is the next article on post-WWII armoured vehicle matters. 

This follows US Soldiers in Vietnam Built own Deadly Gun Trucks of March 7, 2021. 

Click on Video HERE courtesy Australian War Memorial.
---

Below the video is a part description of the Battle of Binh Ba:

“...The Battle of Binh Ba was fought in early June 1969 in central Phuoc Tuy Province in a village located 5 kilometres north of the Australian headquarters at Nui Dat. Early in the morning of 6 June an Australian Centurion tank and an armoured vehicle had been fired on by a RPG-7 from a house as they passed through the village of Binh Ba. The village was occupied by a strong combined force of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army regulars. 

An Australian force of infantry and armour (the tanks and M113 APCs) moved in after awaiting approval from the local district chief to enter the village. Extensive efforts were made to clear the village of civilians. Fierce close-quarter fighting ensued, with the Centurion tanks providing support with their formidable firepower (20 pounder (84mm) main gun, .50 cal (useful for shooting through rubber trees) and .30 cal machine guns).

The enemy soldiers kept undercover, firing from doorways and windows, then jumping into underground bunkers the villagers had built to protect themselves from attack. By the end of the second day most of the enemy were either dead or had withdrawn. Casualties on the enemy side were heavy - over 100 dead - while one Australian was killed (Private Wayne Teeling).

The town was severely damaged during the battle. Immediately after the battle, Australians were sent to distribute food and aid and to begin work on rebuilding. Regrettably, some civilians were killed during the fighting.

The Battle of Binh Ba was one of the major engagements fought by Australians in Vietnam, and one of the few big battles to be fought in an urban setting - something the Australians generally tried to avoid.”

See full description below Australian War Memorial Video.

----------------------

Separately: This is a more detailed description of the Battle of Binh Ba, including details of the Australian infantry, and other units, involved. 

Lest We Forget

GhalibKabir, on March 8, 2021, made some interesting comments on future Australian submarine nuclear propulsion possibilities.

Nicole Brangwin, of the Australian Federal Parliament's Parliamentary Library Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section, wrote an excellent research paper:

"Managing SEA 1000: Australia's Attack class submarines" of 26 February 2020at

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines

In the paper, Brangwin's included a "Nuclear option" section, at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines#_Toc33537733 which includes the wording:

"Discussion around whether Australia should, or could, consider a nuclear powered submarine capability has been persistent in the future submarine context over the last decade.^[284] These discussions have often called for a more serious consideration of the issue and this has only recently gained traction as part of a broader debate about Australia’s future energy sources. The main reason this issue has persisted is because nuclear powered submarines would meet Australia’s strategic requirements for the [Future Submarine Program] FSP.^[285] But without a nuclear industrial base the discussion struggles to progress.

The 2009 and 2013 [Defence White Papers] DWPs categorically rejected the consideration of nuclear powered submarines, which aligns with the Australian Labor Party’s stated position opposing the use of nuclear power for military or civil purposes.^[286] The Turnbull Government’s 2016 DWP did not rule it out.^[287] However, Prime Minister Turnbull stated during a May 2016 press conference that ‘the issue of nuclear propulsion did not form any part of our consideration’.^[288] The current Minister for Defence, Linda Reynolds, [right through to today, March 17, 2021] reaffirmed this point during a Senate Estimates hearing in November 2019 stating: ‘I can confirm that a nuclear powered submarine is not being considered as an option for the Attack class submarine’.^[289]

The US option

[Discussion of some statements by some former defence officials (in 2011-2012) and a journalist, on leasing US Virginia SSNs. It is increasingly likely US would not lease their Virginia subs to Australia. [This is part due to a decline in numbers of US subs compared to new Chinese and Russian subs. Note Los Angeles class SSNs are being steadily retired (old reactors and pressure hulls reaching their maximum cycle lives.) with the last Los Angeles likely to be retired before the first Attack class is commissioned.]

[Nicole Brangwin continues "Further consideration

The second report (2014) of the Senate Committee inquiry into Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry noted that ‘both sides of politics have decided that they would not pursue a nuclear option’ for the FSP.^[300] A Defence official advised the Committee that any decision to acquire nuclear powered submarines would attract an:

... enormous overhead. First of all, you have to change people's attitude towards nuclear power and then, beyond that, the industry behind it to sustain that capability and the cost of operating it. It is an interesting comparison that Japan, which has a nuclear industry and has a substantial nuclear base, chooses to operate conventional submarines.^[301]

Professor Goran Roos (Adjunct Professor at a number of academic institutions) told the Senate Committee that a nuclear submarine capability would be ‘fantastic’ but Australia would need to have the right technology in-country to maintain it:

We do not have a nuclear capable industry within country; hence we cannot do it now. If you rephrased the question and said, 'How long would it take us to go to a level where we could procure a nuclear propulsion submarine?' I would say probably by submarine 6 to 7 in the new build program. That is roughly when you are looking at because that is the time line it is going to take us. You need six to seven conventional submarines, where you start to build up the capability to then have a nuclear system in this area, and you could then go. So you are looking at 10 to 20 years.^[302]

In June 2017 former Prime Minister Tony Abbott [without many supporting him] suggested Australia should consider acquiring nine nuclear powered submarines from allies France, the UK or the US. Abbott lamented his biggest regret while Prime Minister was not ‘robustly challenging the nuclear no-go mindset...’. While Abbott was not asserting ‘that we must go nuclear’, he argued that Australia ‘should at least consider the option before the opportunity is lost for another several decades’. He suggested Australia should start the conversation by talking to the US about providing the RAN with nuclear powered submarines, which could be initially based at the US military base at Guam while Australia developed its domestic nuclear capabilities.^[303]

[Rear Admiral Gregory Sammut - who retired from the RAN later in 2020 and now, in the Australian Public Service, is General Manager Submarines, earlier] stated in October 2017 that there is ‘no plan to switch to nuclear power. Before we can contemplate a nuclear-powered fleet, there’d need to be a much broader policy debate about nuclear power itself’.^[304]

The current debates over Australia’s future energy sources have created an opportunity for a broader discussion about nuclear issues. This resulted in the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. The terms of reference for this inquiry were relatively broad as the committee considered a range of issues including ‘security implications’ and ‘any other relevant matter’.^[305] The Committee also considered previous inquiries such as the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission from 2016 and the Switkowski nuclear energy review from 2006.^[306] The Committee’s final report was released in December 2019 making three recommendations for the Australian Government to consider nuclear energy technology in the future.^[307] Although the inquiry prompted a broader discussion about potential submarine capabilities in the future, the issue appears to have been sidelined for now."
--------------------------------------------

Separately there may be a review in the late 2020s:

If Australia reviews the nuclear propulsion option that would likely be no earlier than the late 2020s. See Australia's 2016 Defence White Paper [ a long 191 page 20MB .pdf ] paragraph 4.29: 

"During the long life of the new submarines, the rapid rate of technological change and ongoing evolution of Australia’s strategic circumstances will continue. As part of the rolling acquisition program, a review based on strategic circumstances at the time, and developments in submarine technology, will be conducted in the late 2020s to consider whether the configuration of the submarines remains suitable or whether consideration of other specifications should commence."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

PETE COMMENT

Given all of the above, Australia’s has insufficient money, political momentum or nuclear expertise (especially on submarine reactors) to second guess or improve on the submarine reactor decisions or designs of remotely likely suppliers (France, the UK and the US).

Further discussion of a future Australian class of SSNs is better done in about 7 years time, while discussing Australian conventional subs is much more useful.

While engineers with high career hopes discuss building Australian nuclear power reactors expensive safety construction on Australia's only reactor speaks to a tangible terrorist threat.

Above are the UK RN's 4 Resolution class SSBN's laid up, awaiting decommissioning at Rosyth Dockyard. Photo courtesy Navy Lookout - this also has an excellent table revealing 9 UK SSNs, though laid up are still "Fuelled" along with other decommissioning don'ts. One, HMS Splendid, has been bobbing away in saltwater, at Devonport, ever more rusty, but still fuelled, since 2003-2004.
--- 

Anonymous, on March 14, 2021, made some interesting comments regarding the huge training and decommissioning costs of SSNs. Also Australian conventional submarines have their advantages. My response is:

Yes Lucas Heights, already surrounded by Sydney suburbs (and vulnerable to large aircraft strikes) would need a $multi-billion expansion in facilities and much more land for an enlarged exclusion zone. The 100,000s of Sydneysiders surrounding Lucas not only would be reminded a reactor is in their midst but forthrightly nail any government trying to expand nuclear facilities within Australia’s largest city. The same goes for anyone suggesting Australian SSNs could be even temporarily berthed in Fleet Base East (Sydney Harbour). 

More isolated sites (but coastal, for reactor cooling) would need to be established say:
-  100km south (still a farm holiday-maker area) of Adelaide, or
-  more problematically 100km from Fleet Base West/Rockingham which is a southern
   district of Perth (100km north of south is in even more intensive farm, holidaymaker areas.

Just one west coast basic nuclear and naval nuclear engineering university might Only need 2,000 students and 5,000 support staff on a 40 square km campus, surrounded by maybe 15,000 dependents. That is if its anything like US Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Yes Australia has had great difficulty captaining and crewing just 6 conventional subs (SSKs). I'm always concerned about politicians of aiming at a 12 SSK force. Maybe 12 is intentionally large to be whittled down to 8, just like a projected 10 Collins became 6. 

I suspect Australian SSKs expert in ambush in the narrows and shallows compliment blue water US SSNs. 

Yes Australia should note well the UK's inability (due to cost) to decommission any of its rusty, radioactive, laid up fleet of old nuclear subs. At least 7 of them bobbing away at Rosyth Dockyard (see photo above).  As at August 2019 20 UK nuclear subs were awaiting decommissioning - laid up at Rosyth and Devonport.^[32]  Even their first nuclear sub, HMS Dreadnought, laid up for 41 years. 

With "The cost of building and operating nuclear reactors is nothing compared to the cost of getting rid of them." I wonder if the US and France have had any problems decommissioning their nuclear subs?

Covert Cabal on March 14, 2021, uploaded an excellent video here and above.

Titled:  Is China selling stolen weapon designs?

4:40 - from 4:40 it gets most interesting describing China is reverse engineering, improving on Russian weapons eg. China's HQ-17 SAM system based on Russia's Tor Missile System.

5:05 - China's cheaper labour mass production (and in some cases export) of Russian weapon systems avoids high development costs. In some cases China has sharply reduced unit production costs for the Chinese military while hurting Russia (which has lower export sales for systems China has copied).

5:27 - for the F-35 the US has suffered the high development cost per factory unit production problem. [With I suspect, Lockheed, US State and Defense Departments pressuring US allies (eg. Australia, Japan and in Europe) buy F-35s to cut unit costs for US military.]

5:32 - Chinese competition and high Russian aircraft development costs means Russian built aircraft are becoming more expensive - so Russia can afford fewer aircraft "while Chinese knockoffs can become a lot cheaper the more China can sell."

5:44 - US spends $Billions on weapon system design and development phases. If China can skip design - development this can save $Billions

5:57 - yet as well as reverse engineered copies China does do adjustments, improvements

6:20 - China has stolen F-35 secrets, [eg. Su Bin "managed to grab volumes of data relating to the F-22 and F-35"]

6:23 - Yet China is developing its own stealth fighters eg. the twin-jet J-20 heavy fighter and twin-jet medium J-31 aka FC-31 

[Pete Comment: advisable US collects J-31 data (eg. in future 3rd country buying one) as its just the type of 5th Gen Minus ("5G-") medium size and high power/weight ratio that USAF Chief Brown has have been talking about].  

6:38 - if/when China surpasses US and Russian tech Chian will no longer have as many  money saving design/devel skipping opportunities 

6:52 - China's DF-21D anti-ship [carrier killer] ballistic missile is a case of a unique Chinese development surpassing the US. Although DF-21D devel has been extremely expensive for China with 15 years (initial design to first test)

7:20 - China now "cutting edge" of hypersonic missiles (eg. DF-ZF boosted by DF-17s ).

7:28 - Chinese gov often claims new weapon systems are operational long before they actually are.

7:36 - so copying can save years and $Billions in development but (Covert Cabal claims) you can never be No.1 technologically

7:50 - China getting to point it can develop its own advanced weaponry - in some cases more advanced than Russia or the US.

SEE MORE GREAT COVERT CABAL VIDEOS HERE  

StrategyPage (which appears to recieve some US intel) March 22, 2021 reports :

Summary - In early 2021, 5 military medical researchers working for the Chinese Institute of Military Health Management published a report in the journal Military Medicine. This revealed 108 of 511 submariners taking a standard mental health assessment survey were suffering mental stress symptoms. This was due to their busy training schedule on PLA-N Chinese diesel-electric submarines operating in and near the South China Sea...

SEE MUCH MORE OF THIS STRATEGYPAGEARTICLE 
--------------------------

The Chinese PLA-N video above mainly shows the interior of  a Type 039A (Yuan class) sub. The helpful submariner guide at 0:56, next to the very cramped top bunk, is a Master Chief Petty Officer. Below video is such telling viewer comments, once translated:

“Salute to the submarine soldier, regardless of mental quality and environment are high pressure” 

and

“The psychological quality of these submarine soldiers is very strong, which is hard for ordinary people to imagine.”

See the excellent article by, Australia's Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, March 23, 2021 at:

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/naval-group-government-complete-negotiations-on-sub-partnering-program/

The following is a summary of Ryan White's UK based Naval Post, on March 24, 2021, report:

"Japan commissions JS Toryu, its Second Submarine Running on Li-Ion Batteries"

The Japanese Navy commissioned its 12th and final Soryu-class sub, JS Toryu, at KHI's Kobe shipyard on March 24, 2021. Toryu is assigned to the 2nd Submarine Flotilla, Kure naval base. Like the preceding Soryu-class sub JSS Oryu, Toryu use LIBs from GS Yuasa with no Stirling AIP. The LIBs are lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA). LIBs require less maintenance, have longer endurance or permit higher speed compared to LABs. [See "Key to" the  SORYU Table below for expansions of all these acronyms.]

[Pete Comment: Soryu subs are budgeted by the Japanese Finance Ministry in Japanese Yen and may average the equivalent of US$550 million for the longterm and only customer, the Japanese Navy. Export prices would be much higher with the need for risk, technology transfer and profit margins. JS Toryu itself cost around US$584 million, probably due to the extra development and production costs of its LIBs.].

Specs for the Soryu include: 84m long, 9.1m beam, 2,900 tonnes (surfaced), about  4,200 tonnes (submerged), 65 crew. Max range 6,100nm at 6.5kn. 2 x 12V25/25SB Kawasaki diesels.

6 x 533mm torpedo tubes for Type 89 torpedoes, UGM-84 Harpoon AShMs and mines.
-----

Note: Naval Post is a UK based online defence media company, focused on Warships, Submarines, Naval Air, Marines, Coast Guard, and Naval Missiles. It started in 2016 with the name of “Naval News”. In 2021 it changed its name to Naval Post.

____________________________

SORYU Oyashio & Taigei TABLE
(with old Oyashio and new Taigei classes) as at March 25, 2021. 

Table by Anonymous and Pete

Derek Woolner and David Glynne Jones have kindly provided information that Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) submarines are now becoming operational. This is with the commissioning of Japan's Soryu-class JS Oryu on 5 March 2020 and JS Toryu 24 March 2021. Derek and David have also put together new details of Japan’s Taigei-class LIB subs. Pete has  summarised the info Derek and David have sent. 

NOTE: 

1. All references to subs below apply to naval subs of many 100s of tons (ie. not tourist or scientific minisubs or SEAL/diver delivery vehicles).

2. Info below without [...] brackets is by Derek and David from published sources. The parts in [...] brackets are by Pete. 

3. Japan's efforts are the first of three instalments on LIBs Becoming Operational. 

After more than 100 years of lead-acid battery (LAB) use LIBs for submarine have been under development since the early 2000s. This has occurred at uneven rates between countries/companies with Japan at the forefront. LIB submarines are now becoming operational and it is expected that by the early 2030s more than 30 LIB subs could be operating in the Indo-Pacific. It is also expected that many autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) (often synonymous with unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs)) will use LIBs in the Indo-Pacific.

First-generation LIB subs will typically have submerged patrol endurance about twice that of LAB subs and around 3 times the submerged high speed endurance.

LIB tech is evolving rapidly and submarine planners expect that LIB capacities could double by 2030. This would provide submerged patrol endurance 4 times that of LAB subs and  around 5-6 times the submerged high speed endurance.

The substantial increases in stored energy provided by LIBs will also enable future subs to support more advanced sensor, combat and autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) systems.

The following is public info on the current status of development and adoption of advanced battery systems for subs.

JAPAN’s LIB-EQUIPPED SUBS

Soryu [Mark 2]-class

The two final Soryu-class subs [the Soryu Mark 2s] have LIBs and are now operational. They are.

- JS Oryu, commissioned on 5 March 2020, the world’s first operational LIB sub. All previous Soryus used LABs and Stirling air independent propulsion (AIP). Oryu is serving in the Japanese Navy’s Submarine Flotilla 1, at Kure naval base.  

- JS Toryu was commissioned on 24 March 2021.

[To see the incremental sequence of the subs, by many measures, see Pete and Anonymous'  "SORYU-TAIGEI TABLE" by scrolling down.]

Taigei-class

JS Taigei (first of class) was launched on 14 October 2020 and is scheduled to be commissioned in March 2022. While similar in general design to the Soryus class, the Taigei class subs will have more advanced systems [eg. combat systems and snorkel] and LIB capacity may be around 30% larger than the Oryu-Toryu Soryus. After commissioning, JS Taigei will be converted into a test submarine, to provide a dedicated operational and platform for accelerated research and development. [It will also aid in crew training and  familiarisation.]

Japan also has an unnamed Taigei-class sub (SS-514) [see Table below] being built. It was laid down on 25 January 2019, scheduled to be launched 2021 and commissioned in March 2023.

[Japan continues its tradition of building around 10 subs of each class.] So 10 Taigei-class LIB subs are planned (starting with JS Taigei and SS-514) with the 10th of class scheduled for commissioning in 2031. See here and here.

Derek Woolner is co-author of the classic (2008) [on Pete's bookshelf!] and still very relevant The Collins Class SubmarineStory: Steel, Spies and Spin . He is a previous Director of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Group in the Parliamentary Research Service.

David Glynne Jones is an independent advocate for the adoption of renewable energy technology across all sectors of the Australian economy. He is currently assessing the implications of emerging advanced battery technology for electrification of the Australian transport sector.

Their blog-website is Woolner and Jones.

Pete, Submarine Sherlock-like gentleman amateur, dabbles. Once in gov, many moons ago, kemosabes.
______________________________

SORYU-TAIGEI TABLE as at March 26, 2021. 

(also some old, but still operational, Oyashio-class details).

Table by Anonymous and Pete