Business SA says Future Submarine fleet could include nuclear-powered versions once local atomic industry is established

AUSTRALIA’S future submarine fleet could include a potent mix of both intelligence gathering diesel vessels and rapid, fast-moving nuclear-powered submarines once SA has a sophisticated atomic industry.

• POWERFUL BOND: Vive le Shortfin Barracuda
• WEATHERILL IN FRANCE: Subs to create more jobs than expected
• MADE IN SA: Subs to be built by French firm in Adelaide
• BRIGHTER FUTURE: Subs help save state from economic disaster
• DAVID PENBERTHY: Lazy scribes should look closely at subs deal

AUSTRALIA’S future submarine fleet could be transitioned to include a potent mix of both intelligence gathering diesel boats and rapid, fast-moving nuclear-powered vessels once the state develops a sophisticated atomic industry based around storage, Business SA says.

The Federal Government is facing calls from across the strategic policy and business communities, as well as from an outspoken SA Senator, to strongly consider the nuclear option.

READ BELOW: Lib MP in subs ‘sheltered workshop’ jibe

SA rejoiced this week in the glow of thousands of promised new jobs as the Federal Government selected French naval giant DCNS to build 12 new conventional diesel-powered subs in Port Adelaide, which are charged with defending the nations water for a generation.

Premier Jay Weatherill visited DCNS’ Cherbourg shipyard last on Friday Adelaide time, just hours after SA was chosen as the likely site of a low-level nuclear waste dump and as former governor Kevin Scare puts the finishing touches on a Royal Commission due for release within days.

Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride, who joined the Cherbourg tour to observe the construction of a nuclear Barracuda sub that will become the template for Australia’s diesel fleet, said there was strong national defence reasons for having a mix of the two.

Diesel subs are prized for their ability to become completely silent when powered down, while nuclear vessels are much faster and do not need to resurface for fuel and battery charging.

Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride.

Australian Strategic Policy institute senior analyst Mark Thomson said it was a “no-brainer” to go with nuclear subs if politics allowed it, and Family First Senator Bob Day claims national security will be put at risk is the state fails go for a more potent and tested design.

Mr McBride told the Sunday Mail that building community confidence behind nuclear storage was crucial before the question of expanding the industry into defence capabilities.

“As we’ve gone around Europe and looked at their nuclear cycle, and take into account the likely final recommendations from the Royal Commission in regards to the storage of waste, we will as a nation and state soon come to a decision about if we participate or not,” he said.

“If we do, the question will become how far we want to go and what the country is comfortable with. There will be an enormous opportunity to look at how that will impact upon defence.

Prefect of the Northern Seas Admiral Philippe Ausseur greets Premier Jay Weatherill at the DCNS Shipyard at Cherbourg, France. Picture: Calum Robertson

“We don’t have the capacity at the moment, and we don’t have the on ground industry.”

Mr McBride said storage was a “starting point” in a discussion about other applications.

The first future sub is set to hit the water in the early 2030s, about the time when Mr Scarce says the state could have a storage industry up and running if it moved to do so immediately.

“We walked around a facility today which had a significant nuclear threat, nobody even blinked. We walked around and took it for granted that it would be professionally contained,” Mr McBride said.

“A lot will change over the next decade or so. I think right now that is a conversation that is very difficult to have or even raise. But, yes, logically given that investment you would think it would be valuable to have half conventional submarines and then half nuclear submarines.”

Senator Day said there was “no escaping” the strategic need for nuclear subs.

“Australia’s defence needs are best served by six conventional diesel-powered subs and six nuclear-powered, but not nuclear armed, subs,” he said.

“Australia is a huge continent and the range, speed and capability of nuclear subs is well known.

“The winning DCNS bid links SA with a French nation with nuclear subs and nuclear power. This opens up great opportunities for SA to learn how to embrace all facets of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

Premier Jay Weatherill enjoys a morning coffee near the Madeleine Church in Paris. Picture: Calum Robertson

Mr Thomson said diesel subs were valuable in “certain, specific circumstances”.

“But if you had to choose between 12 nuclear or 12 conventional subs, it’s a no-brainer. You’d have the nuclear subs every time. Nuclear boats would be difficult, they’d be riskier, they’d be politically probably a bridge too far at this point in time, so hence we went with conventional.

“Nuclear are very fast and can stay submerged for very long periods of time, in fact months.

“When a diesel sub is standing still, it doesn’t have to run anything. It can shut down and doesn’t create the sound of having pumps on a diesel continuously moving.”

Australian law currently bars the use of nuclear subs.

Speaking in Cherbourg, Mr Weatherill said defence use of nuclear technology was not under consideration by the Royal Commission and “not something we are contemplating at the moment”.

“We have a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission which is considering elements of the fuel cycle, but that doesn’t extent into defence.”

He has previously said it would take about two decades to build up such a technical capacity, which would require community backing and significant technical investment.

Lib MP in subs ‘sheltered workshop’ jibe

GOVERNMENT MP Dr Dennis Jensen has publicly canned his own party as hunting for votes to save Federal seats in South Australia by awarding the state the $50 billion contract to build 12 submarines

The WA Member of the House of Representatives said that decision was “potentially the biggest boondoggle (an unnecessary, wasteful or fraudulent project) in Australia’s history’’ and that the submarines should be built in WA.

“This is clearly pork-barrelling at a level unseen in our history, all because the government wants to save some seats,’’ Dr Jensen, pictured, wrote on Facebook.

“Our defence should not be hijacked to support some glorified sheltered workshop at massive expense to the taxpayer.’’

Dr Jensen questioned why Australia should have 12 submarines, saying that number was first suggested by former Labor defence minister Kim Beazley then adopted in the Rudd government’s Defence White Paper without a proper analysis.

“We keep doing it with Defence acquisitions,’’ Dr Jensen said. “Just like the Joint Strike Fighter, where a decision was made with no stated requirement and therefore, no analysis comparing contenders against the requirement, we have a similar situation with submarines.

“It may be the case that we do need 12 (subs) but where is the requirement? After all, this is potentially the biggest boondoggle in Australia’s history, costing $2000 for every man woman and child in Australia!”

He said the submarine contact should have gone to Austal Ships, situated near the HMAS Stirling naval base, at Rockingham, WA.

“For a start, Adelaide is about the last place you would build them,’’ he said.

“In terms of geography, the submarines need to transit an awfully long way on the surface before they can even dive for testing and qualification.

“Australia’s best shipbuilder (Austal Ships) is just across Cockburn Sound from HMAS Stirling, where the submarines are based.”