Oxley Submarines

[Lucky Bones]

Hearing that Aus is into submarines again now.

I vaguely recall my father taking me to see the Oxley subs 55+ years ago, Adelaide.

Think they were scrapped quickly.

Any comments?????????

[CharlieH]

Not Thailand related moving to Home Country AU 

[asf6]

Oxley 1 had an interesting fate. After being given back to the British navy, it was torpedoed and sunk in 1939 by another British submarine, HMS Triton, which had mistaken it for an enemy vessel. 

 

Source.

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-oxley-i

[Lucky Bones]

14 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Not Thailand related moving to Home Country AU 

Thank you. Never sure where to post.????????

[scottiejohn]

55 years ago you would have visited a UK built Oberon class submarine;

The first Australian Oberon class submarine, HMAS Oxley, was commissioned on 21 March 1967. She was followed by her sister ships; Otway (1968), Ovens (1969), Onslow (1969), Orion (1977), and Otama (1978). Orion and Otama were more capable than the previous four boats, as they were fitted with advanced communications monitoring equipment.^[12] All of the Oberon class submarines were based at HMAS Platypus, on Sydney Harbor. The Oberons proved very successful and saw extensive service during the last decades of the Cold War.

[KhunHeineken]

The subs are costing up to $368 billion dollars.  That money could have gone a long way to fix up many problems in Australia. 

[Lucky Bones]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The subs are costing up to $368 billion dollars.  That money could have gone a long way to fix up many problems in Australia. 

Yes, yes, I agree.

I was wondering if there is anyone who personally recollected any subs in Adelaide harbours back then.

Cheers for your comment.????????

[KhunHeineken]

On 3/18/2023 at 4:42 AM, Lucky Bones said:

Yes, yes, I agree.

I was wondering if there is anyone who personally recollected any subs in Adelaide harbours back then.

Cheers for your comment.????????

The subs are nuclear.  What Australian city will want them in their port? 

[LosLobo]

On 3/23/2023 at 9:56 PM, KhunHeineken said:

The subs are nuclear.  What Australian city will want them in their port? 

What subs are nuclear? The Oxley and Oberon are not nuclear.

 

Australia has already welcomed many visiting SSN's into its ports over the years, why would an Australian city not want them?

 

Perhaps you are getting confused with NZ!

 

With no disrespect, as with a lot of your posts, you continually comment on topics that you know nothing about.

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

What subs are nuclear?

The new ones that Aus is getting under the recent AUKUS agreement;

Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China - BBC News

 

[LosLobo]

22 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The new ones that Aus is getting under the recent AUKUS agreement;

Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China - BBC News

 

My question was more for rhetorical purposes, rather than to elicit information.

 

But thank you nevertheless!

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

What subs are nuclear?

The subs we have just done a deal to buy.  You know, the subs that have been all over the news recently.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html

 

"San Diego: Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide to begin service in the 2040s under a mammoth transformation in national defence that will cost up to $368 billion by 2055."

 

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Australia has already welcomed many visiting SSN's into its ports over the years, why would an Australian city not want them?

Maybe because they were visiting, not stationed there.

 

Would you want to live near what is  basically a small nuclear reactor? 

 

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

With no disrespect, as with a lot of your posts, you continually comment on topics that you know nothing about.

With no disrespect, as usual, you continually troll me when you haven't got a clue about the topic being discussed.

 

Try harder. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

My question was more for rhetorical purposes, rather than to elicit information.

No, you clearly asked, and I quote, "What subs are nuclear?"

 

Now you know. 

 

So, would you like to live near a port where nuclear subs are based, and radioactive material is being transported? 

[LosLobo]

41 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

The subs we have just done a deal to buy.  You know, the subs that have been all over the news recently.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html

 

"San Diego: Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide to begin service in the 2040s under a mammoth transformation in national defence that will cost up to $368 billion by 2055."

 

Maybe because they were visiting, not stationed there.

 

Would you want to live near what is  basically a small nuclear reactor? 

 

With no disrespect, as usual, you continually troll me when you haven't got a clue about the topic being discussed.

 

Try harder. 

Obviously, you don't understand the meaning of rhetoric.

 

My knowledge of current events in Australia was never an issue.

 

You need to catch up.

 

Yet, did you did qualify your comment "The subs are nuclear.  What Australian city will want them in their port" with visiting subs would be welcomed but permanent ones are an issue?

 

With no disrespect your posting of redundant comments seems to be your forte here.

 

I am au fait with the topic.

 

Coincidently, I was on the USS SSN 666 Hawkbill when it visited HMAS Stirling in Perth for Exercise Lungfish with the Australian Navy in October 1996.

 

Yes, maybe someone should try harder! 

 

 

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, you clearly asked, and I quote, "What subs are nuclear?"

 

Now you know. 

 

So, would you like to live near a port where nuclear subs are based, and radioactive material is being transported? 

There is no reason for any "radioactive material" to be transported just because an SSN is in harbour.  They do not carry nuclear weapons and do not need "refuelling".

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Obviously, you don't understand the meaning of rhetoric.

 

My knowledge of current events in Australia was never an issue.

 

You need to catch up.

 

Yet, did you did qualify your comment "The subs are nuclear.  What Australian city will want them in their port" with visiting subs would be welcomed but permanent ones are an issue?

 

With no disrespect your posting of redundant comments seems to be your forte here.

 

I am au fait with the topic.

 

Coincidently, I was on the USS SSN 666 Hawkbill when it visited HMAS Stirling in Perth for Exercise Lungfish with the Australian Navy in October 1996.

 

Yes, maybe someone should try harder! 

 

 

 

Once again, just another troll post from you.

 

It wasn't rhetoric, you clearly had no knowledge.  You simply tried to deflect that fact. 

 

Visiting subs post less of a risk than permanently stationed subs because, well, that little nuclear reactor isn't permanently there.

 

From the linked article:  "The United States Navy and the Royal Navy will station nuclear-powered submarines in Perth from 2027 in the first step toward filling the capability gap."

 

With no disrespect, it is laughable that you call my comments redundant and then say it's because you were on a vessel in 1996, some 27 years ago.  Oh the irony.  

 

You need to get up to speed.

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

There is no reason for any "radioactive material" to be transported just because an SSN is in harbour.  They do not carry nuclear weapons and do not need "refuelling".

From the linked article: 

 

"Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide"

 

"All the submarines in the new plan will be powered by nuclear propulsion systems made overseas and fitted with nuclear fuel that will last the lifetime of the vessel."

 

I took the above to mean the small nuclear reactor would be built overseas but installed in the vessel whilst it's being built in Adelaide.  This would mean it would have to be "transported" to Adelaide.  

 

However, I suppose the vessel could sail to the location where the nuclear reactor was manufactured under conventional power, and then fitted out with the nuclear power plant. 

 

When you read articles such as these, about nuclear material just "falling off the back of a truck in Australia" you can understand the risks involved with transport. 

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-lost-radioactive-capsule-update-nuclear-agency-joins-hunt/206756cf-2fb5-49bb-97b6-a195edc339e5

[scottiejohn]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

From the linked article: 

 

"Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide"

 

"All the submarines in the new plan will be powered by nuclear propulsion systems made overseas and fitted with nuclear fuel that will last the lifetime of the vessel."

 

I took the above to mean the small nuclear reactor would be built overseas but installed in the vessel whilst it's being built in Adelaide.  This would mean it would have to be "transported" to Adelaide.  

 

However, I suppose the vessel could sail to the location where the nuclear reactor was manufactured under conventional power, and then fitted out with the nuclear power plant. 

 

When you read articles such as these, about nuclear material just "falling off the back of a truck in Australia" you can understand the risks involved with transport. 

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-lost-radioactive-capsule-update-nuclear-agency-joins-hunt/206756cf-2fb5-49bb-97b6-a195edc339e5

The Nuclear reactor and propulsion system is an integral part of the submarine and is installed during build.  It cannot be fitted after build so no transport of radioactive material is required.

[KhunHeineken]

13 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The Nuclear reactor and propulsion system is an integral part of the submarine and is installed during build.  It cannot be fitted after build so no transport of radioactive material is required.

So the nuclear reactor, built elsewhere, has to be transported to Adelaide for installation.

 

How does a nuclear reactor work without any nuclear material?  How's the nuclear material going to get onboard the sub during the build if it will not be transported to where they are building the sub? 

[scottiejohn]

21 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

So the nuclear reactor, built elsewhere, has to be transported to Adelaide for installation.

 

How does a nuclear reactor work without any nuclear material?  How's the nuclear material going to get onboard the sub during the build if it will not be transported to where they are building the sub? 

My apologies!

I thought the submarines were being built in the US/UK and being delivered to Australia where in fact they are to be built in Adelaide!

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

My apologies!

I thought the submarines were being built in the US/UK and being delivered to Australia where in fact they are to be built in Adelaide!

Let's hope none of that nuclear stuff falls off the back of a truck on the way to ship building yard. 

[scottiejohn]

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

Let's hope none of that nuclear stuff falls off the back of a truck on the way to ship building yard. 

Exceedingly unlikely.

Can you quote any serious incidents involving radioactive leaks during SSN/SSBN construction in either the US or UK?

 

"There has never been an accident in which a Type B transport cask containing radioactive materials has been breached or has leaked"

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)

[asf6]

8 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

I thought the submarines were being built in the US/UK and being delivered to Australia where in fact they are to be built in Adelaide!

I doubt very much that the nuclear reactors will be built in Australia. They will be built in the USA or UK and delivered to Australia, IMO. 

 

According to a report in the Telegraph two weeks ago, "the reactor plants in their entirety are being provided by the UK.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/13/rolls-royce-make-nuclear-reactors-aukus-attack-submarines/

[KhunHeineken]

5 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Exceedingly unlikely.

Can you quote any serious incidents involving radioactive leaks during SSN/SSBN construction in either the US or UK?

 

"There has never been an accident in which a Type B transport cask containing radioactive materials has been breached or has leaked"

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)

There have been some accidents whilst transporting nuclear material over the years, but It's not just the transport and construction that is an issue. 

 

The port in Perth, where these subs will be based on rotation, will have a very big target on it if / when we go to war, and I would think bombing a nuclear sub whilst in port would not be good for all living things in the area, should the reactor come apart. 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

There have been some accidents whilst transporting nuclear material over the years

Which ones have occurred concerning the construction of SSN/SSBN's and what was the impact?

 

PS;  Here is the answer;  ZERO!

[ozfarang]

14 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

From the linked article: 

 

"Australia will build a new fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide"

 

However, I suppose the vessel could sail to the location where the nuclear reactor was manufactured under conventional power, and then fitted out with the nuclear power plant. 

 

When you read articles such as these, about nuclear material just "falling off the back of a truck in Australia" you can understand the risks involved with transport. 

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-lost-radioactive-capsule-update-nuclear-agency-joins-hunt/206756cf-2fb5-49bb-97b6-a195edc339e5

And what conventional power would that be in a sub built to be propelled by a nuclear reactor?

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Which ones have occurred concerning the construction of SSN/SSBN's and what was the impact?

 

PS;  Here is the answer;  ZERO!

Does it really matter what the nuclear material will be used for?  Would the exposed people care? 

 

I have already given a recent example in Australia.  Imagine if a kid found that missing capsule and took it to school to show his mate.   Google will show you many other accidents from around the world, include train accidents that were transporting nuclear material.

 

As for nuclear subs themselves, their record is not so great, either.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/nuclear-submarines-prompt-environmental-and-conflict-concern/100470362

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, ozfarang said:

And what conventional power would that be in a sub built to be propelled by a nuclear reactor?

The member stated there would be no transportation of nuclear material in the construction of the subs.  If that were to be true, and the nuclear material wasn't coming to the sub, then the sub had to go to the nuclear material.

 

Perhaps they could have surface towed it, or fitted a diesel engine that would be stripped out at the destination.  I suppose they could have also bolted a mast on it and sailed it to the nuclear power plant for installation.  

 

The member later recanted.