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
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.