Now all the 'experts' have had their say, here are the facts of the matter from a real expert :  https://johnmenadue.com/why-does-australia-need-submarines/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJVdqh...

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 11:00am:

Does anyone deny or challenge the notion that Australia needs subs?

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 11:59am:

I think there's a need to develop a societal 21st-century attitude towards nuclear power as opposed to the 1960s attitude that has dominated at least 3 generations.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 2:59pm:


Where do you come up with this? You're completely wrong. The Virginia-class attack submarines we are buying from the US Navy are nuclear-powered submarines. The subsequent submarines we will design and build (the AUKUS-class) with the UK are also nuclear powered.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 12:33pm:


I think what he is trying to say is that nuclear powered submarines use steam to turn the propellor, which in his mind makes them steam powered. This is akin to saying that a car is powered by expanding gas, not petrol. While this is true in a sense, common usage and understanding describes the fuel source, not the propulsion process.
And just to refute his argument entirely, never have I heard a nuclear submariner refer to his vessel as steam powered.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 1:10pm:


All ships, previous to the so called nuclear powered ones were/are described by their motive power.
Sailing ships and before them as oared, single bank, two etc.
Ships propelled by steam engines are Steam ships, they are never called by their fuel type.
Motor ships by their power plant also, diesel-electric subs are called after their power plant type not after their fuel
Murray River paddle boats, as another example, are called steam boats not after their main fuel, wood.

So the erroneously termed Nuclear submarines are steam boats because they are powered by steam, their fuel source is a nuclear reactor, which without the boiler, water and steam engines can do sfa to move the boat.
Here endeth the lesson, except to remark that of course submariners are going to call them what the boss calls them, submariners are chosen for their intelligence as well as other factors, e.g. size.; they aren’t stupid.

Politicians coined the Nuclear Powered misnomer because of votes.
Steam ship sounds so old fashioned.

Edit.
The analogy with cars fails because cars are not ships and the terms of reference are somewhat different, however steam cars are never known by their fuel source, Abner Doble’s famous cars used petrol as a fuel to make steam, they were however referred to as steam cars not petrol cars.
However I am willing to be educated, so explain why so called Nuclear submarines are not steam boats.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 2:51pm:


Condensed and recycled perpetually - unless it leaks somewhere it could go on for the life of the reactor - and batteries in case of damage are a must.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 1:56pm:


No one says they do not use steam for propulsion, however your ridiculous pedantry ignores the common understanding of the term 'nuclear power'.  This does not make you look clever, but merely an attention seeker. 

Oh, and BTW, I have read with interest this post you made previously:

They also have the permanent capacity to make a lot of noise and although they have improved in this respect they are still noisier than our long retired ‘’Orion’’class of the 1970s.
Then there is the detectable heat signature, some thing which cannot be avoided where there is a.nuclear reactor., it has to be kept relatively cool and cold water in equals hot water out’.

Perhaps you should leave any comments on submarine capabilities and operations to those of us who know what we are talking about.