Australia - nuclear weapon capable state? - Page 2

**Officer of Engineers** · 10-26-2004, 22:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

type 093 + kilos DO have AIP

The infamous 093 again. Thus far, the rumour has not been confirmed though it has been suggested that the YUAN is the 093 .

And Chinese KILOs don't have AIP.

Franco Lolan · 10-26-2004, 23:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The infamous 093 again. Thus far, the rumour has not been confirmed though it has been suggested that the YUAN is the 093 .

And Chinese KILOs don't have AIP.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp

chinese subs have upper hand right now. more,getting better,own waters.

China's Subs Lead the Way

Proceedings, March 2003
By Dr. Lyle Goldstein and Lieutenant Commander Bill Murray, U.S. Navy

"Even the U.S. submarine force must expect losses, however, given improvements in Chinese submarine platforms, training, weaponry, and the sheer weight of numbers."

**Officer of Engineers** · 10-26-2004, 23:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp

Read it carefully. The article states that it has been reported that the PLAN has acquired AIP, not that it was confirmed nor was it ever confirmed to be deployed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

chinese subs have upper hand right now. more,getting better,own waters.

Vis-a-vi what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

China's Subs Lead the Way

Proceedings, March 2003
By Dr. Lyle Goldstein and Lieutenant Commander Bill Murray, U.S. Navy

"Even the U.S. submarine force must expect losses, however, given improvements in Chinese submarine platforms, training, weaponry, and the sheer weight of numbers."

Expect losses, not defeat. Don't try to twist Bill's words around. CDF is helping him with his articles and sources and he is helping us to get published about the Taiwan scenario.

Jay · 10-26-2004, 23:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp

From the above link....

Quote:

From the photos of the submarine it can be seen that Yuan class may have been based on, and derived from China’s indigenous Type 039/A (Song class) and the Russian Kilo class SSK. Other reports indicated that the boat may be fitted with air-independent propulsion (AIP) system but this cannot be confirmed.

Yuan class has a tail with diving planes similar to those of the Type 039A, and a Kilo-style teardrop shaped hull with a raised hump on top, which suggests that the submarine may be as quiet as Kilo class.

The only operational AIP boats are with Sweden. And we really need to know more to even talk about the endurance of those ships. Forget endurance, still these ships are diesel-electric.

PLAN is still a brown water navy, it needs massive courage to just fight against 7th fleet let alone the whole of USN. PLAN is emerging fast, but it doest mean that it can beat USN anytime soon.

Blademaster · 10-27-2004, 18:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

China has 2 Type 636, the other 2 are 877EKM. Seawolf is old, so Type 636 cannot be compared with them. USN's new attack submarine is Virginia class, and it is nuclear powered for a start. Remember Kilo's dont have AIP, so how ever quiet they may be, they dont have the endurance to stay submerged.

Again you have to really look in to the units they deploy during these exercises and the limitations of the exercises. They are trained for any eventuality, and they would never see/experience most of them. Surprises are always there, so I dont want to really go there. So MK-1's beating F-15 or F-16's may not work in favour of India, If India is to ever fight USAF as a whole.

Seawolf is old!!??? What are you talking about!? Seawolf is the best technological boat out in the world. They stopped producing Seawwolf class submarines after the 3rd one because they were so damn expensive. Virginia class is the degraded version of Seawolf class which was pretty dump b/c looking at an overal cost benefit analysis, Seawolf comes out top every time in terms of operations, maintenance, and versalility.

I know that Seawolf is at most 8 years old but that does not change anything. Seawolf is still more capable than a brand new Virginia class submarine. I would not take on Seawolf in anything less than an Akula III submarine.

Jay · 10-27-2004, 19:51 PM

Well, may be "old" was a wrong choice of word.

But yeah, Virginia class is the latest, smallest, chepest attack submarine desgined to hunt the Akula's.

Other than the size and well displacement, I dont think seawolf is that superior to a Virginia class boat.

By the way did you see USN's SSGN's??

Blademaster · 11-01-2004, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Well, may be "old" was a wrong choice of word.

But yeah, Virginia class is the latest, smallest, chepest attack submarine desgined to hunt the Akula's.

Other than the size and well displacement, I dont think seawolf is that superior to a Virginia class boat.

By the way did you see USN's SSGN's??

Yeah I heard about the conversion of the Ohio class to SSGN. If you ask me, it is not much of a gain but it gave the Navy some excuses to keep more Ohio class in services. Ohio class submarines are awesome. I love them.

Seawolf packs a bigger punch and more firepower than a Virginia class submarine. Also she has way more advanced sensors than a Virginia class submarine.

stevenmeyer · 02-12-2005, 23:58 PM

US is deploying F/A 22 Raptor which is the best air superiority weapon currently flying. Each raptor should be able to take on half a dozen or so Mk I's at a time.

Trooth · 02-13-2005, 08:38 AM

Whichever class of ship/sub is best, i think the rudder has gone on this thread!

Australia is more than likely allowing itself, almost certainly through accident rather than design

, to become a nation that can quickly come to a nuclear position.

As has been pointed out, it has two strong nuclear allies (UK and US) and it might happen to be that Australia has no interest in nukes but that if a conflict looked like it needed some Nuclear weight on its side, it could have its own delivery mechanism for them. Even if it didn't have its own stockpile.

IMHO nuclear reactors for eneergy production are something all nations should retain an ability to build. I know there are weapons implications, but going forward there are also going to be power generation implications for most countries.

Confed999 · 02-13-2005, 13:54 PM

I wouldn't be worried if Australia had nukes.

Intelligences · 04-20-2005, 03:39 AM

South Australia is a major producer of Uranium.

Australians ("Aborigines") such as Elder Kevin Buzzacott
have vigorously protested against EuroRussian Uranium-mining activities
but almost NO ruling EuroRussians here seem to take any notice.

EuroRussians in Australia had a limited U-mines policy for many
years or decades but now, even under a "Labour" government,
it is Full-Steam-Ahead for more U-mining and the
consequences of Major Environmental Disaster.

"What Goes Around Comes Around"
e.g. 911

Confed999 · 04-20-2005, 20:30 PM

What's wrong with mining uranium?

Selective · 04-20-2005, 21:45 PM

Estimated Recoverable Resources* of Uranium

*tonnes & percentage of world

Australia 889,000 27%
Kazakhstan 558,000 17%
Canada 511,000 15%
South Africa 334,000 11%
Namibia 256,000 8%
Brazil 232,000 7%
Russian Fed. 157,000 5%
USA 125,000 4%
Uzbekistan 125,000 4%
World total 3,340,000

"Although known to exist in Australia since the 1890s, uranium was first discovered at Mount Painter in the Flinders Ranges in the early 1900s. It was not until the 1930s that uranium ore was mined at Radium Hill in South Australia. The radium extracted from the uranium ore was used for medical purposes. The first major producer of uranium in Australia operated from 1954 - 1971. It was the Government-owned Rum Jungle project, in the Northern Territory.In 1958, mining started at Mary Kathleen in Queensland.

After much exploration, discoveries of uranium were also made at Nabarlek, Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Yeelirrie and Kintyre in Western Australia, Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon in South Australia and Ben Lomond and Westmoreland in Queensland.

Most of Australia's known uranium reserves are in South Australia. In fact, Olympic Dam is the world's largest known uranium resource."

Summary of in situ resources* available in operating and prospective Australian uranium mines

*Deposit- Ore/Resources, Grade U3O8, Contained U3O8, Category

Olympic Dam- 606 Mt, 0.05% 315,800 t Proved & Probable Reserves
1150 Mt, 0.04% 460,000 t Indicated Resources
Ranger- 22.0 Mt, 0.19-0.29% 57,000 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Jabiluka- 13.8 Mt, 0.51% 71,000 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Beverley- not available, 0.18% 21,000 t Resources
Honeymoon- not available, 0.15% 6,800 t Resources
Billaroo West- not available, 0.12% 17,600 t Resources
Koongarra- not available, 0.8% 14,540 t Proved & Probable Reserves
Kintyre- not available, 0.2-0.4% 35,000 t Reserves & resources
Yeelirrie- 35 Mt, 0.15% 52,000 t Indicated Resources

*Some policy info*

Quote:

Safeguards to Prevent Military Use

"Among uranium exporting countries Australia has some of the strictest conditions relating to the use of its uranium. These safeguards (inspections and accounting procedures) ensure that uranium exported from Australia is used for peaceful purposes only and is not diverted for military purposes or used in a way which adds to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Agreements to this effect between the Australian Government and each country wishing to import Australian uranium are therefore necessary before sales contracts can be completed. Such agreements are in addition to the application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards arrangements administered under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Australia has in force 17 bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements covering 27 countries - Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and EURATOM (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain in addition); and Taiwan.

The safeguards required under these bilateral agreements with Australia are additional to those under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Among other things they permit the reprocessing of used fuel only as part of a recipient country's nuclear energy program that has already been approved by Australia. Any reprocessing must be done under IAEA safeguards. The further transfer of nuclear material is only permitted to countries which have bilateral safeguards agreements with Australia."

More for u all to digest..

Quote:

Friday March 18, 2005, 7:54 pm

Australian Uranium Miners Set For China Export Deal

By Stephen Bell and Veronica Brooks Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

PERTH (Dow Jones)--In a move that could provide energy-hungry China with access to the world's biggest uranium reserves, Australian and Chinese diplomats are trying to hammer out a bilateral nuclear trade deal.

Officials in Canberra believe an agreement could be thrashed out inside 12 months, allowing Australian uranium exports to Asia's biggest consumer of energy to start much sooner than previously thought.

Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said this week he is confident his government can strike a pact with China, throwing open a potentially huge market for the likes of mining heavyweight Rio Tinto Plc. (RTP) and takeover target WMC Resources Ltd. (WMR.AU).

"If China opens up for Australia, that will bolster uranium exports as well as global prices," said Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke.

China aims to boost nuclear power development to meet the country's surging demand for electricity. The issue has become more urgent as the energy-hungry eastern provinces suffer increasingly severe power shortages.

The country currently operates nine nuclear power plants with a total rating of 7,000 megawatts, about 1.8% of the country's total power generating capacity. According to government plans, 32 new 1,000 megawatt reactors are expected to be brought on line by 2020.

Uranium would diversify Australia's energy exports to China, which consist mostly of thermal coal used in power stations. From late next year China will also begin importing Australian liquefied natural gas as an alternative fuel.

A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said a bilateral safeguards agreement with China could be finalized in three to five months but realistically it will probably take about a year.

He noted there is no urgency on China's part, as Beijing is looking to secure long-term supplies of uranium, a fuel that has doubled in price over the past year.

Global Uranium Shortfall Set To Widen

Although second to Canada in production, Australia has the biggest reserves of uranium and is close to the rapidly expanding Asian market.

But because of Canberra's tight control over the supply chain, export earnings from uranium are a fairly modest A$360 million a year. This is dwarfed by the billions of dollars the economy draws from gas and coal customers abroad.

Ian Hore-Lacy, manager of the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Center, said that it "makes sense" for uranium-rich Australia to pursue a trade deal with China, where nuclear power is growing.

"There is no reason that a bilateral agreement with China can't proceed, though Australia needs to have the ability to audit where the uranium goes - to see that it is not used for military purposes," he said.

There is already a "broad" international framework in place, in that Australia and China are both members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that came into force in 1970, he said.

And Australia already has bilateral uranium export deals with more than 20 countries, including France, the U.K. and the U.S., he noted.

Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, which has prompted some countries to consider uranium as an alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

The renewed demand, along with falling stockpiles of former weapons material, has caused a shortage of supplies.

WMC chief executive Andrew Michelmore told a recent seminar that current global uranium production meets only 58% of demand, with the shortfall made up largely from shrinking stockpiles.

The shortfall is expected to run at 51 million pounds a year on average from next year to 2020. Uranium prices have doubled in the last year to over US$20/lb and are forecast to settle at US$25-30/lb in the longer term, he said.

"A uranium supply squeeze is looming and the market is set to remain tight as nuclear power programs expand," Michelmore said.

"Japan is planning 16 new plants, with India and China building another seventeen. This will come on top of the global supply shortfall facing the current 438 reactors," he said.

The resultant uranium price boom has fired up the share price of several Australian companies, including WMC, which has agreed to a A$9.2 billion (US$7.3 billion) friendly bid from BHP Billiton (BHP).

BHP's timing could be perfect as WMC - which holds 38% of the world's known uranium resources at its Olympic Dam mine - plans to treble uranium production just as a China export deal beckons.

China is trying to join that list, with China International Trust & Investment Corp. (CI.YY) having visited Olympic Dam before Christmas as WMC fought a hostile takeover bid by Xstrata Plc.

At the time, CITIC was looking at taking a stake in Olympic Dam or WMC, people familiar with the situation told Dow Jones Newswires.

"We believe there is significant interest in China in purchasing Olympic Dam uranium," said WMC corporate affairs manager Richard Yeeles.

"Olympic Dam is seen as a long-term supply option because of the very long life of the mine."

Melbourne-based WMC also held talks with French uranium group Areva (427583.FR) before BHP showed its hand earlier this month and trumped Xstrata.

Olympic Dam is Australia's second largest uranium producer. The biggest is Ranger, owned by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. (ERA.AU), a unit of Rio Tinto.

ERA declined to comment on whether it is looking at exporting uranium to China, following the developments in Canberra.

But Ranger's production, which is due to run out around 2012, is mostly tied up in long-term contracts with customers in Japan, South Korea, the U.S. and Europe, a person familiar with the situation said.

Any future sales into China would likely come from ERA's Jabiluka deposit, 22 kilometers north of Ranger, which began development in 1998 but stalled because of disputes with traditional owners.

Following a deal unveiled last month, ERA needs to secure the consent of the Mirra Gundjeihmi Aboriginal people before Jabiluka - regarded as one of the world's richest uranium deposits - can be developed.

The next official talks between ERA and the traditional owners are not due until mid-2006.

glow · 04-21-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooth

Whichever class of ship/sub is best, i think the rudder has gone on this thread!

Australia is more than likely allowing itself, almost certainly through accident rather than design

, to become a nation that can quickly come to a nuclear position.

As has been pointed out, it has two strong nuclear allies (UK and US) and it might happen to be that Australia has no interest in nukes but that if a conflict looked like it needed some Nuclear weight on its side, it could have its own delivery mechanism for them. Even if it didn't have its own stockpile.

IMHO nuclear reactors for eneergy production are something all nations should retain an ability to build. I know there are weapons implications, but going forward there are also going to be power generation implications for most countries.

It's friggin Australia, despite what fox news has told you solar power does work.

**ZFBoxcar** · 04-21-2005, 11:21 AM

It doesn't work at night or when there are clouds, and it works less well during winter, even in Australia. But I agree that solar energy is well worth pursuing. But nuclear power is also good, and much cleaner than fossil fuels.

10-27-2004, 19:51 PM	#21 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 6,191 Country:	Well, may be "old" was a wrong choice of word. But yeah, Virginia class is the latest, smallest, chepest attack submarine desgined to hunt the Akula's. Other than the size and well displacement, I dont think seawolf is that superior to a Virginia class boat. By the way did you see USN's SSGN's?? Last edited by Jay : 10-27-2004 at 19:54 PM.

02-13-2005, 08:38 AM	#24 (permalink)
Trooth *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-03 Posts: 2,110 Country:	Whichever class of ship/sub is best, i think the rudder has gone on this thread! Australia is more than likely allowing itself, almost certainly through accident rather than design , to become a nation that can quickly come to a nuclear position. As has been pointed out, it has two strong nuclear allies (UK and US) and it might happen to be that Australia has no interest in nukes but that if a conflict looked like it needed some Nuclear weight on its side, it could have its own delivery mechanism for them. Even if it didn't have its own stockpile. IMHO nuclear reactors for eneergy production are something all nations should retain an ability to build. I know there are weapons implications, but going forward there are also going to be power generation implications for most countries. __________________ The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

02-13-2005, 13:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
Confed999 Staff Emeritus Join Date: 09-10-03 Location: Florida Posts: 10,681 Country:	I wouldn't be worried if Australia had nukes. __________________ No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

04-20-2005, 03:39 AM	#26 (permalink)
Intelligences New Member Join Date: 04-16-05 Location: Adelaide South Australia Posts: 9	Relentless Pursuit of Uranium in South Australia South Australia is a major producer of Uranium. Australians ("Aborigines") such as Elder Kevin Buzzacott have vigorously protested against EuroRussian Uranium-mining activities but almost NO ruling EuroRussians here seem to take any notice. EuroRussians in Australia had a limited U-mines policy for many years or decades but now, even under a "Labour" government, it is Full-Steam-Ahead for more U-mining and the consequences of Major Environmental Disaster. "*What Goes Around Comes Around" e.g. 911* __________________ Thank You for Thinking! ***************** Space Intelligences: EXTREMELY Advanced Beings often with NO Image.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-12-2005, 23:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
stevenmeyer New Member Join Date: 02-12-05 Posts: 1	US is deploying F/A 22 Raptor which is the best air superiority weapon currently flying. Each raptor should be able to take on half a dozen or so Mk I's at a time.

04-20-2005, 20:30 PM	#27 (permalink)
Confed999 Staff Emeritus Join Date: 09-10-03 Location: Florida Posts: 10,681 Country:	What's wrong with mining uranium?

04-21-2005, 11:21 AM	#30 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,125 Country:	It doesn't work at night or when there are clouds, and it works less well during winter, even in Australia. But I agree that solar energy is well worth pursuing. But nuclear power is also good, and much cleaner than fossil fuels.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM
The Pakistani "Loose Nukes" Conundrum	Hari_Om	South Asian Defense Topics	7	05-25-2006 09:31 AM
Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council	Dreadnought	Political Discussions	13	01-16-2006 15:14 PM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	14	11-20-2004 16:27 PM
Nuclear Terrorism	Jay	South Asian Defense Topics	6	09-09-2004 15:47 PM