Australia's biggest enemy is Time. It's possible that a major Pacific conflict will engulf the region long before any of these vessels get even remotely damp.
Australia lacks resources, population and quality people. Let America become the arsenal of the West like in WW2 when war comes, it'll just donate older ships to the weak countries like Australia, Canada and Britain.
I have friend in the Australia Navy, problem isn’t the number of ship, it is where to find the crew to crew the already existing hull. They barely meet the recruitment last year and the projection is that the number will dropping this year as well. So the shipbuilding plan sound nice but unless they intend to scrap more ground unit and merge more division into 1 to allocate the manpower needed for the expansion plan, it only gonna sound good on paper.
They have had recruitment issues for 30 odd years, get told every year pay doesn't come close. They put in allowances but when you get that small time to relax on shore posting you end up broke so burn out at sea.
The Australian Inter-Continental Ballistic Marsupial arsenal is second-to-none. One can't blame them for taking to the water though, as it is the only place safe from the Emu menace.
Not sure what is more worrying, people whinging about house prices or their ignorance of the importance of having a strong deterrence. I would imagine that if China puts the screws on our trade, the same people will be crying about the fact we don't have the ability to defend ourselves. Maybe read the white paper, there is a reason why some of the new ships can be under or unmanned. Plus as binkov mentioned, most of these will be built in Adelaide, so that's thousands of jobs. Appreciate you binkov for providing a strong overview, although you missed touching on the upgrades for our mine fleet 👍👍
Whinging about house prices because what’s the point in defending your country if you have no stake in it? Imagine asking young people to go and defend a country they can’t afford to live or raise a family in anymore.
I haven't played enough my first and last game was 14 hours straight You opinions I'm interested in hearing it ( I understand we have decent recordings)
Especially if you want to keep all contract domestic. The RCN in Canada has the same issue, massive ship building plans but all centred around 4 shipyards.
The terms "corvette", "frigate", "destroyer" or "cruiser" are, in fact, not arbitrary. They aren't displacement terms though, but mission capability terms: corvette: a single task beyond surface warfare frigate: multiple tasks beyond surface warfare, but definitive primary and auxilary tasks it can perform destroyer: capable of all tasks beyond surface warfare as a full mission capability cruiser: capable of all tasks beyond surface warfare as a full mission capability, but with a further extended capability for at least one mission set There are countries who do a bit of juggling with these terms to not upset the public, but Germany and Japan and their domestic politics are not the defining powers for warship classification.
I love the idea of "optionally manned" - the entire navy is already there, particularly the collins class subs. Some bureaucrat/politician comes up with the idea of "lets double the size of the navy". Some intelligent soul next to them asks "how are we going to crew them?" - "lets call them 'optionally manned'", that will solve all our problems.
I think it was actually the Army the required it at the time. They needed an amphibious ship to transport ADF personnel and armoured vehicles and supported by helicopter within our pacific region..so only 2 was required for the amount of ADF personnel required for an amphibious force
live in Adelaide about 10km from the proposed site for building them in the future. First we'll need to expand the drydock to compensate for the subs then probably build some kind of housing structure on top of that before we even consider building them but yeah, I hope to see a few of them ship out to sea trials from down here before I die lol. I'm already near 40, i don't think i'll last until the last one goes out but I hope to see atleast a couple in my time lol!
Yeah, nah, bro. I'm not dying for this country - or yours. Auckland is majority non Anglo-Saxon now. The Asian invasion has already happened, and it had little to do with the CCP. Big Maori loots the middle class for billions in cahoots with successive governments left and right. I've got the message, ta.
Nah, we have wasted enough tax dollars on items to kill. Look at the loyalty we got from France with the Rainbow Warrior incident. Glad to be a Nuclear free country that supports peace not giving anyone else a reason to target us. Its common sense to leave one land mass in the southern hemisphere, but hey common sense goes out the window when profit is at stake.
Will it also include a plan to keep current ships _fully operational_ via effective maintenance? Because that would be nice. And it's a quick force multiplier.
We've been in a second cold war for quite awhile. Unfortunately we didn't really pay attention until after 2014, and even then many thought it unlikely until 2022.
What are you talking about? It's already hot. When Russia went into Ukraine in 2014, the world realised they were behind. 2022 made everyone realise how woefully underprepared we all are. France and Poland have already massively increased their defence capabilities and we're somewhat behind. I am curious if reality is going to set in for Germany any time soon though, since they seem to be the lagging behind everyone else.
I get the feeling were in a pre war phase to a "second second world" war so to say, with the new axis powers of russia, China and Iran massively arming up and in russias case, already having started their insidious projects of ruthless imperialist expansion.
Parts of the Army are essentially having their focus changed to potentially fight in the littoral zones.... just off shore or among the island chains. The idea being to prevent them making it on to the mainland and having to fight an adversary there.
We are also expanding our airforce and missile force. We don't need an army really. An army would be for invading someone else. We need a strong missile defence capability with a strong navy and airforce with a small expeditionary capability for regional stability as we are the regional power. We don't need the capability to destroy an invading force outright. We just need enough capability to make it too risky to try it in the first place.
A lot of reasons why: - Platform and System Complexity - Infrastructure - Money - Quality Assurance - - Governments and Militaries are much more scrutinous(don't know if that is a word) of what they buy and invest in. - - - US torpedoes for example - Bureaucracy - The Cold War was raging in the 1950s and it was a bipolar world, we are headed towards a multipolar world now and that entails different responses
Edit: I'm just going to spoon-feed you since I know you won't actually look any of this up. If any modern-day major country was to actually spin up a War Economy we would be absolutely destroying any manufacturing benchmarks that were set in the 50's. The timelines are laughable because we have no need to put 100% effort into this stuff, so the vast majority of our production power goes to other, civilian industries. You should probably research the differences in "War Economy" vs "Civilian Export Economy." Allied countries in the 50's were still weening themselves off of a war economy where many large civilian companies had shifted entire factories dedicated to producing weapons and machines, and were in the process of transitioning themselves back into civilian implements. You can't just say "lol production better in the 50's" when we've had 70 years of relative peace and no need for these types of manufacturing plants that were capable of slapping together all the parts needed for warships at an enormous scale.
@@appa609 and that urgency has led to project managers that are corrupt for instance the senior project manager of the fujian cvn was fired and arrested for corruption mainly for the acquisition of subquality steel
@@MithrralBy the time you build up all the plants to get back to 50s speed, the war might already be over. Confidence is good but a little bit of humility goes a long way too.
I am not against Australia having a F-35 jump carrier, but I don't think a conversion is practical. The Japanese designed their "helicopter destroyers" with a future F-35B conversion in mind. Besides Australia needing the Canberra just as a LHD, there would need to be significant changes and even then it would not be optimal. For example, the landingcraft area can be better used to support F-35B operations (e.g. fuel ordnance, spare parts, etc. The elevators may have to be changed, particularly the rear elevator. The hanger deck would likely need to be changed to accomodate both helicopters and F-35B. And then there is the avionics for command and control of fighters, as oppose to helicopters mainly dealing with amphibious operations. Frankly, I think it would be cheaper to start with a clean sheet design, that or buy a jump carrier that is already optimized for teh F-35B.
@@ycplum7062the Spanish designed the boat to operate harriers, and are currently upgrading theirs for F35-B, so……… Rear elevator needs to be bigger and the landing area needs to be painted in high temperature pain…..and we could ask Navantia to do the work when they’ve finished upgrading their boat.
@@タコの王The structure of the canberra class was modified to be cheaper than the spanish one because it wasnt planned to use vstol planes, it would be cheaper to make new ships than to modify the existing ones. Altough if the australian government would like to buy new ships from us we would be delighted.
@@タコの王 The Japanese only really needed to apply the high temp deck surface. They already had the elevators and hanger deck flow pattern all worked out. I am more concerned about the hanger deck layout. It wouldn't take much to modify the Canberra class to do touch and gos and to refuel/rearm F-35s. Things can get tricky if you have to store, maintain , and repair F-35Bs in a Canberra class. And with all the islands, Australia really needs a fulltime LHD to deploy and supply island garrisons.
Actually Australia like many democratic nations are surprising transparent with their defence policy, strategy, procurement, and threats. The only issue is they give you so much, it's sometimes a bit hard to know where to start.
8 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
@@wavavoomThis person has obviously been living under a rock.
The Imperative for an Australian Nuclear Deterrent in the Face of China's Existential Threat. Australia's strategic security landscape is increasingly fraught with challenges that pose an existential threat to its sovereignty. Foremost among these is China's rising military might, whose expansionist policies and aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific region have raised alarms about Australia's future stability and security. Given the current state of Australia's defence capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons emerges as a crucial strategy to deter potential aggression and ensure national survival. Strategic Vulnerabilities and Defense Shortcomings: - Australia boasts a vast and sparsely populated coastline stretching over 25,000 kilometres, presenting a formidable challenge for defence and surveillance. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is under-equipped to secure this extensive border against a superior military force like China. Key shortcomings include: 1. Insufficient Defense Expenditure: Australia's defence budget, while significant, is spread thin across multiple domains, resulting in a lack of advanced and comprehensive land, sea, and air deterrents. The current expenditure levels are inadequate to match the rapid military advancements seen in China. 2. Manpower Constraints: The ADF is experiencing its lowest manpower levels since World War II. This limited personnel pool hampers Australia's ability to project power and sustain prolonged defensive operations, particularly against a numerically superior foe. This is evidenced by the new Australian Foreign Legion forecast to boost recruit numbers. 3. Technological and Capability Gaps: The ADF lacks the advanced technological edge and integrated defence systems to effectively counter modern threats. This includes deficits in missile defence, cyber capabilities, and strategic mobility. The Case for a Nuclear Deterrent. In the face of these challenges, nuclear weapons offer a potent solution that can offset conventional military disadvantages and provide a credible deterrent against existential threats. The strategic rationale for Australia to pursue nuclear armament includes: 1. Deterrence Against Superior Forces: Nuclear weapons serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling any potential aggressor to reconsider the risks of a military incursion. The mere presence of a credible nuclear arsenal can induce hesitation and strategic caution in adversaries, including China. 2. Force Multiplier: A nuclear capability would act as a force multiplier, significantly enhancing Australia’s defensive posture without needing proportional increases in conventional forces. This would enable Australia to maintain a more balanced and sustainable defence budget. 3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Possessing nuclear weapons would enhance Australia’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on allied support in times of crisis and enabling more decisive and independent defence policies. 4. Geopolitical Stability: A nuclear-armed Australia would contribute to regional stability by establishing a balance of power. This could deter China's direct aggression, coercive tactics, and geopolitical maneuvering. Conclusion. In a rapidly evolving security environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a compelling strategic imperative for Australia. Faced with China's overwhelming military superiority and constrained by current defence capabilities, Australia must consider a nuclear deterrent to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its vast coastline, and ensure national survival. By developing a credible nuclear arsenal, Australia can transform its strategic landscape, compelling any potential aggressor to think twice before undertaking any kinetic actions against the nation. Australia needs to grow up.
@marksullivan2230 The folly is would allies assist. With the ingress of China Yuan into the EU and China now cutting ties in trade with America the new BRICS agenda and the push with Belt and Road into the Pacific and Asia rim. 2000 yanks are useless. No I stand by my view of self defence in the nuclear age. It is also founded on frontline experience.
It is good Australia is finally stepping up it's military, however the timeframes are incredibly stupid. All 8 AUKUS submarines by 2060? That is absolutely ridiculous. I get they will be the most advanced submarine in human history but the time it is taking is a risk to Australia. We need to act faster on this and re-evaluate the timeframe to acquire these weapons.
It seems like its more of an ongoing deterrence strategy than necessarily designed to directly compete in an impending conflict. It would already be largely pretty dumb to try to invade Australia for most countries-- barring perhaps lobbing some large rocks at pine gap (which lets face it, is US territory by any reasonable measure), and they clearly want to keep it that way.
We were sold by the jews to the chinese decades ago mate. This is just money laundering and perhaps a bit of a cull operation when the riff raff get too untamed.
@@Matt_JJz You're ignoring the fact that we're supposed to be building the submarines and as someone from the city where they're going to be built.. We haven't built the infrastructure to build the submarines yet.. You guys talk a bunch of crap without knowing the details of anything lol. Must be like a video game where you just plop down a building, connect some electricity and you're good to go, right? We currently build surface ships down there in those shipyards they're designed around building warships not nuclear submarines.. First we have to expand the drydock area to compensate for the submarines, then we have to build the buildings where they are constructed, then we can talk about building the first one... You're looking at 7-10 years or so just for the infrastructure at its quickest I'd say. Then you have to build them 40 years is fuckin best case scenario. We're a country of 25 million and our city is just over 1.2 million of that 25. How many of them do you suppose have jobs building nuclear submarines? Yeah? clowns.
The 11 general purpose frigates will either be the German A200 frigate or the alpha 5000. The Japanese ship is probably too big and the alpha 3000 is a corvette not a frigate.
@@grosey11, that all fine if fleet was all drones but even the major combatants of existing fleet is struggling to put to sea due to lack of personnel. Doubling the fleet with vessels requiring less crew and drones will only exasperate the issue. No where in the fleet review has it addressed how to stop the decline in retention or recruitment. BTW, drones, even with AI still require a degree of human crewing, even if just launching and recovery.
There really isn't an option. 30% of the population are immigrants who would simply leave the country if they or their Australian-born children were conscripted. And trying to only conscript long term generational Australians would be entirely illegal and politically suicidal.
@@JohnSmith-tl8pq, agreed immigrants are an issue and conscription as you say would be political suicide, also the navy would have issues with operation and discipline with personnel who didn't want to be there by free choice.
The Australian economy has been going very well for around 25 years (excepting the COVID19 blip) and in such times military service is never going to be as appealing as it is during harsher economic times.
My understanding is we are buying 3x2nd hand nuclear powered Virginia class submarines with an option to buy 2 more, we are building in partnership with the UK to build 8 new nuclear powered Aukus class submarines and the 6 conventional Collins class we already have will all be updated including updating the propulsion system, the electronic warfare system and the communication system.
Two US Virginia Class Submarines (most probably Block IV) with 1 new build (Probably Block VII) Virginia Class. The two existing subs will have at least 20 years life remaining. Which means they are amongst the recently commissioned (given a 35 year life of the boat). Australia will build 8 of the AUKUS Class boats (whatever they end up being called. The first of these are scheduled to enter service in 2043. If they are late Australia has an option to buy two more Virginia's to cover that. The Collins are going to undergo a LOTE (Life of Type Extension) gutting the subs replacing engines, electronics, communications etc as you said.
Hey Binkov, Galaxy Lamps sucks. Some other TH-camrs have already struggled with getting their payment and the lamps themselves often take months to arrive, sometimes arrive broken, take months more to be repaired if at all and there’s all kinds of lies. Like that it’s a realistic star map while in reality it’s just evenly spaced dots and paying for a star-like color instead of green dots is extra and all that kind of stuff. These guys are bad news. And I heavily dislike you not doing any research on them prior to sponsoring them. Also that “sale” is a 24/7 all year kind of sale.
The problem is these navies are 10-15 years behind building enough destroyers, frigates and submarines to put up a Prolong substantial war against china in the pacific. If I could see this war coming 10 years ago, then why couldn't these leaders, who are now terrified of chinas rocket force and Navy see it? We dont have enough surge capacity for munitions or to build and replace ships in the pacific. Again I'm not a 4 star admiral or a Long term serving member in congress.
The adf has really strict recruitment standards even for basic roles and will knock back many recruits if they don't meet those standards, that can be directly blamed for the shortage they now face.
Have had those standards for 40 years. I applied for both Airforce and Navy and got knocked back on weight to height requirements. I was 1.78m but only 60 kg. I force fed myself for 6 months but never put weight on. Now in my early 60's I wish I could get below 72 kg again.
The standards are not that high, if you go to the gym for 6 months you could enlist fairly easily. Their problems are with retention. They still need to increase wages, culture and healthcare (including mental health).
The increasingly woke leadership of the ADF doesn't help with recruitment & neither did the mandated jibby jabs...... straight out the door for any refusals, even if you had doctor backed exemptions. Personnel leaving early and sooner than planned, making sure anyone they know or asks about joining the ADF gets the unvarnished truth....... yeah that explains the recruiting shortfall.
billion dollar question. oh wait they havent even allocated a budget for their wishlist. lot of consultant fluff with no actual meat. let's not even talk about the elephant in the room -> recruiting personnel (skilled workforce for shipyards, sailors, maintenance, etc...) which all western navies are having hard time to cope with.
I’m genuinely surprised by how ignorant some of these comments are, like people we need to stop relying on allies to defend us. Just like WW2 when we relied on the British to protect us from Japan and guess what happened they couldn’t. Like we aren’t far away a Chinese ICBM can reach us in less than 2 minutes. In the missile age we need to have Domestic capability of producing and operating our own Military force capable of protecting our national interests and the Australian homeland itself. We need to be able to protect shipping lanes from foreign powers influence. The fact that people can’t see this is beyond comprehension.
You hit the nail on the head CAPABLE OF PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL INTREST, great words, the government has never spent on defense "it won't happen to us" is their mindset, now they are scrambling to get equipment which we can ill afford let alone maintain, our defense forces couldn't even protect the Sydney Opera House in an attack we do not have the weapons or manpower
You missed that Australia also has two Canberra-class landing helicopter docks @ 27,500 Tonnes that can (and should) be converted to fixed wing aircraft carriers.
He really didn't miss them. The tonnage comments were about surface combatant ships which the Canberra class is not part of. The only time he really covers LHD type ships is when talking about if X country could invade Y country.
The U.S. is increasing its manufacturing base at its fastest rate in history (saw the statement, and it included WW2). It is already cheaper to manufacture in north America than china (when shipping is included). So with Australia still heavily raw material exporting china might not be Australias largest partner for too long
You trade with them because the west is apathetic and can overlook what China does to an extent if they can still get their cheap tat. Once millions of drones start blocking out the sky and sentient AI terror cults start popping up and God knows what else, people will still be apathetic. That doesn't mean they won't one day just take you if you didn't have a means of defending yourself. Utopia is a comedy, not geopoltics.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yup didn't England just finish paying off its dept from WW2.. There was a time weapons were made to fight wars,, now wars are manufactured to sell weapons.
@@kiwibonsai2355 wars aren't manufactured , they are started by warmonger regimes like Russia and china, the economic benefits to some countries are coincidental
Australia should transfer the Advanced Cape Class boats from the RAN to Border Force then the RAN should be a war fighting body with corvettes, frigates and destroyers. We should lease decent German type 216 diesel electric subs until the nuclear subs come online. Border Force should focus on borders and patrol boats.
China has pulled the sleeping lion's tail. They've decided to massively enlarge their military but expected everyone else in the neighborhood to remain calm and not to invest in their own capabilities..
Its the same mistake hitler and the other axis leaders made. They armed up and increased their militaries, boasting their strength and arrogantly starting wars with powerful and numerous foes, only to fond themselves hopelessly outmatched and defeated at the end.
Future ships need much larger missile loads. Size should be a bit bigger. Or automation to reduce crew numbers. And have room for future technologies. Such as drones.
Lol Australia is going big in drones and is ahead of even the USA in this field, MQ28A Ghost Bat, now is Ghost Shark a AI submarine using Ghost Bat Australian AI. Are AI Australian drones in Ukraine now also. is AI vtol helicopter, AI M113A also. Australia testing AI trucks as resupply vehicles now also. they use 1 human driven front truck and the AI trucks follow. Is a old Australian navy patrol ship being converted to AI so can test full sized war ships as AI operated. Is a scramjet powered hypersonic drone taking flight this or next year by Australia also.
You can see already quite quickly volume is a huge flaw in these systems. The concept of minimal numbered large systems is quite tricky.. they should have another two types of vessels, both similar to aircraft carriers.. one just completely full of missile tubes and chain guns, and another just full of drones, medium, small, large.. unmanned aircraft. Aus aircraft can field from 4-10 air to air missiles, and up to 400 rounds.. they have 3 main types of planes.. 72 f35a, 24 super hornet, 11 growlers.. wiki says 84, lets go with that.. you would run out of missiles and bullets before downing the sea of drones given the price points.
I can see the new australian 3000t frigate being the UK type 31 which could be inserted in the middle of the royal navy 5 ship order already. Ship is a lot bigger than the others, being british where the australian industry already have some industry connection to the uk with the type 26 with BAE. Wouldn't require much for them to gain indstry connection to babcock type 31 project which is heavily marketted by babcock for exports while also only costing £286m per despite being a decent size of 5600t 138m ship.
Too expensive. And after the type 26 issues of integrating systems that RAN require it will delay the delivery of getting type 31 with similar issues. I believe for tier 2 it will be 11 ships of Navantia Alpha 5000 frigate 5400T fully loaded with 32 cell VLS and CEFAR-2 radar system that has already been developed into it's design. I believe the next government will scrap the 6 optional crewed vessels and upgun the type 26 to 96 cell VLS and use the 6 ships as new destroyers or will cancel the program altogether and build 3 more F100 class AWDs instead. I also believe AUKUS sub deal will collapse due to shortages of US and UK delays and Australia will have to go to plan C and build 12 new son of collens that has VLS into its design to fire tomahawks and ADF may require a squadron of B21 bombers to fill the capability they seek
rant: i doubt Australia Military would ever consider Indonesia other than an ally. they do wargames with them every yr so... Indonesia probably have ceremonial tours inside these new Aussie ships- or have some fancy dinner on them- Indonesia would love Australia to have a massive navy- other then themselves having it hehe
@@mnm8818Indonesia is not an ally, it’s a threat, that’s why they will never be sold modern gear from Australia. We sell them outdated equipment as they can’t fully be trusted. We are at risk of having conflict with them right now as they’re attacking other pacific island nations as we speak. You really should look past the news mate.
@@jimmyTimtamwow Australia successfully break apart Indonesia to get gas field and now trying to break apart west Papua from Indonesia. When Indonesia executed Australian drug dealers we ask to get our aceh tsunami donation back. When we have refugee crisis we sent warship to Indonesia borders.... Is that what ally do?
A navy guy once explained to me that Corvette/Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser no longer refer to displacement, generally (although, as a rough guide corvettes are the smallest while cruisers are the largest). Corvettes and Frigates are ASW/surface warfare oriented (with some self-defense AAA) with corvettes being more like light coastal defense ships while frigates are true blue water ships. Destroyers are intermediate craft that can do the work of frigates and cruisers with frigates doing that job cheaper while destroyers do the cruiser job cheaper but less effectively (basically a "jack of all trades"). Cruisers are pretty much air-defense focused (although they can do some ASW stuff, especially with their helicopters) and are carrier/major ship escorts. Cruisers are generally more capable and bigger craft than destroyers, and are thus way more expansive in both $$ and manning.
The term Cruiser will be dead by 2027 with the retirement of the last Ticonderoga from the USN. The next generation Destroyers are all 160m+ and 11-12,000t, ships are being designated as Frigates anywhere, from 3000 to 11000t, Corvettes from 1500-4000t, OPVs from 500-5000t. Terminology of ship types was never about displacement; it was about a ships role and the firepower it carried. Going back to WW2, and this is when the terminology came into being, you had. Heavy Cruisers, fitted with 8-9 eight-inch guns, a heavy torpedo load and displaced 10,000-20,000t, top speed 30-32kt. Light Cruisers fitted with 8-12 six-inch guns a heavy torpedo load and displaced 7-15,000t, top speed 32-35kt. Destroyers fitted with 3-6 four-to-five-inch guns and a heavy torpedo load and displaced 1500-3000t with a top speed of around 35kt. Frigates fitted with 1-3 four-to-five-inch guns a heavy ASW load and displaced 1200-2500t but only a top speed of 20-21kt. Destroyer Escorts was the name the USN used instead of Frigates. Corvettes fitted with 1-2 three-to-four-inch guns and a heavy ASW load, displaced 500-1500t and a top speed of 20-21kt. The post war USN Worcester class Cruisers were 202m and 18,000t but were designated as Light Cruisers because they only carried six-inch guns.
Australia has no strategic fuel reserves as it has privatised and stupidly closed most of its oil refineries, it also has no merchant fleet of its own. The decision to expand the fleet is like buying a car without an engine.
It needs to increase because they need to make up for the fact we kiwis don't own a navy so we need them to not only defend us sir wise but also sea wise.
@@snigie1lol Ye NZ probably should I vest in some capable naval assets though for sure. It's much easier to form ground based formations with kit than to build ships or aircraft. Especially modern ones. That's why I get annoyed when people moan about spending "too much" on the military saying we can just build stuff when we need them in the event of a war. They don't realise it takes a couple of years to get a modern ship to get built and longer to get it's crew capable to use such an advanced ship. Better to have a powerful navy, air force and medium sized army that is highly specialized with good numbers of part time soldiers or reserves.
How is the airforce going? Yes geographical isolation has worked so far. But ballistic missiles, hypersonics, naval build up has made the world a smaller place.
As an aussie who has been around a few decades, none of this will happen, the cost is half what it will be before anything hits the water. This deal is for union jobs in manufacturing thats it.
Nobody predicted that tensions would escalate so rapidly. In 2014 (a decade ago) Australia and China were very strong business partners, and whilst have/had differences everyone was more willing to work together. Later in 2014 the CCP started a new tactic of diplomacy that became known as "Wolf warrior diplomacy" and with that started the beginning of the end to everyone's respect towards China and by 2018 (4 years later) Australia had to find new business partners to work with. It was around this time the US had a president that continuously preached about not supporting other countries and destroying deals.... It's hard to know who is going to support you in times like that. The defence review took years of extensive analysis to determine the best way forward for the ADF, yes, these things realistically take too long, but you also have to ensure the decision you make is the correct one. I guess only time will tell and hopefully war will not happen.
I personally think they will leave the Hunter class frigates as they are for sub defence, new frigates will increase fire power. Japanese Frigate Magumo class is the best and like most Japanese ships, more suitable for Australia and the broader Pacific region. We are very lucky America and others are sharing their crown jewels with us.
Yes but Japan english is very bad translating all those manuals would be impossible, i used to remember reading all teh mistakes in the NINTENDO game books from terrible translations, it makes it so complicated because no western person can write perfect Japanese and no Japan person can really write and read in perfect english its rare. plus there subs and ships have low range, look at there sub its only 40 percent the range of a Collins thats a huge difference
UK🤝AUS let's go lads! Now if only Canada would get their heads out of their arse and give us CAUKNZ (yeah I dropped seppo-land for New Z, because why not)
@@captain61games49 True, but it should be an updated Hobart, not a modified Hunter. Why build an expensive ASW quietened hull to then add VLS and not have a VDS? IMO the Hunter program has been misconceived.
To be fair those optionally crewed vessels are going to have Aegis, they are some kind of smaller DDG to an extent, depending how they turn out i would not be surprised if we end up with twice as many unmanned vessels to manned vessels as our future surface combatant fleet.. The first 6 will be to see how well they can be integrated into our ADF including with our Airforce like F-35, E-7A Wedgetails, P-8A's and other unmanned aircraft, land based radars also forward deployed special forces on islands targeting for them etc, if they can be integrated and utilised by all our ADF branches then we will definitely see more built..
Corrent and 90 percent chance that will happen... the Hobart 3 billion AUD cost ended up being the same cost as a Burke that was 40 percent bigger .... so what did AUS save in cost savings by buying a smaller ship... the blame passing began.... They have such small orders that there is no economy of scale anyway and no fixed priced contract
@@LeonAustThe New Mogami should have space for 32-48 in her bow; her substantially lower crew needs are a big selling point for the RAN given the recruitment issues
A company I worked for was bidding on an Australian navy contract. It stipulated that we would not use any local labor whatsoever. This made the bid significantly more expensive than using local labor. I asked why. The Navy rep said that the labor was all union and there were so many walkouts and strikes that it would significantly delay the project. Therefore, they used as much foreign imported labor as they could to stay on time. They can make all the plans they want, but this is worse than the British car industry before that all went away.
@@grosey11 Thats more than half the problem, give military a budget, not to quibble about, and let them choose what they want, without political or public service interference
I call bulls**t. If this were true, then you should provide proof to the media, I know "The Australian" would be interested in proof of what you claim, and I'm sure "The Guardian" would be interested in trying to disprove any conclusions drawn by the former. Or, in other words, front up or shut up.
@@alexlanning712 ummm indonesia with almost 300 million people has a defence budget of 7 billion USD Australia has 26 million people with a budget of 37 USD billion.... and your telling people thats not enough.... defence already gets TOO much, you could save 40% in one week by getting rid of all the ex military people on GOV boards and on military company pay rolls that dont do whats best for the country... things like buying a Tiger Helicopter for a huge price then scraping it claiming its EURO and high cost SO WHY did defence buy it i wonder they get there wish list to the GOV not the other way around , its defence that wastes GOV money... Hobart class ship building another example Spain built the same ship at half the cost AUS paid , there a rich country how is that so i wonder
Perhaps if the Royal Australian Navy are building up their fleet by that much and are purchasing so much Equipment and ships from the UK The British Royal Navy would themselves be like: hmm if the Aussies can build up by that amount why can’t we too. I recon this huge Australian build up could be a wake up call for the RN and the MoD to actually fix the terrible state of our Fleet. It’s time for a CANZUK 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿fleet to be a 3rd Western global Defence Force similar to USA and EU. Edit: well now that we are gonna up our defence spending to 2.5% perhaps this isn’t impossible now.
what about the duds that both the UK and USN have sold us that are rustbuckets adn are sitting port cant cdeploy? adn the duds they have built for their own fleets 3 billion pound aircraft carriers, nuke boats that cant fire missiles properly, littoral ships etc etc
@@keithprinn720 Russia clearly has problems with its defence acquisition, or Ukraine would be no more, and it's unlikely everything the Chinese are building really functions as advertised. But Frigates, Destroyers, Submarines and Drones of all manners that share platforms between CANZUK members would make sense. If you want a rust bucket, look at the Aircraft Carriers the Russians managed to flog to India and China. Both countries have worked out they'd have been better off building their own from scratch.
It's 90% BS. Just look at the track record. Most of these ships won't be built and the ones that are built will be decades late. A leopard doesn't change its spots.
it would of been far cheaper and more reliable with no risk... 80 percent commonaility would saved so much and why wouldnt you just use Spain for most of your fleet it makes it easier anyway when most of the Navy is built by Navantia ... there sub s-80 pus was big enough for AUS too 1 billion each was still a good deal when you consider France got 4 billion for the contract to cancell for nothing
Naval warfare is not just about the number of hulls you can deploy. Can you maintain them properly? (Russia?) Can you crew them with well trained crews? (Russia again) And - and I think most importantly- are you a traditionally maritime power? Or (as John Keegan so eloquently put it) are your a society ‘born to the sea?’ The UK, USA, Japan and Australia and even the ROK are such nations with those strong links to the ocean AND fighting at sea that Russia and - I would suggest- the PRC lack (although not as badly in the PRC’s case) We feared German naval expansion in both world wars and the USSR’s in the Cold War and , whilst both were a threat, they never amounted to a true challenge to the Maritime powers.
Yes the theory of maritime vs land based powers comes in here. Maritime powers need to establish or join trading coalitions and rules-bas d orders because they can afford their navies based on expanded trade. Land based powers can expand their territories by grabbing neighbouring nations' territories. It is therefore good that Australia is a maritime trading nation as we benefit from a stable world with a rules-based order.
The confusion regarding classing ships as frigates or destfoyers stems from a misunderstanding of tradition. In many navies ship classes are generally based upon size, with frigates being smaller than destroyers. In the Royal Navy however the custom was to class ships by function. Ships whose primary role is antisubmarine warfare are considered frigates. That's why it is not unusual for British frigates (and the frigates of navies traditionally part of the Empire or Commonwealth) to be either larger or smaller than destroyers. Class based on role, not size.
3 Hunter Class CANCELLED 6 OPVs CANCELLED 2 Anzac Class DECOMMISSIONED Army projects CANCELLED AirForce projects CANCELLED 6 Hunter Class sometime in 10 years 11 General Purpose Frigates sometime in 15 years 6 USV ships sometime in 20 years 8 Nuclear Submarines sometime in 25 years Maybe.......
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Australia's biggest enemy is Time. It's possible that a major Pacific conflict will engulf the region long before any of these vessels get even remotely damp.
I agree with that , in fact I believe that the vessels need to be in service now not in 20years time
You meant Rusted?
Correct but China still is a bit behind as well, they have not replaced all of there 60s 70s stuff just yet.. you have to start somewhere
Australia's biggest enemy is the country pushing for war in the first place.
@@keiranallcott1515 Problem is that the plans to acquire the needed vessels should have begun while Howard was in power and kept going after that.
Bout time our navy got a decent upgrade ⚓️⚔️🇦🇺
Australia lacks resources, population and quality people. Let America become the arsenal of the West like in WW2 when war comes, it'll just donate older ships to the weak countries like Australia, Canada and Britain.
@@JohnDoe-bh2lpare you underestimating Australia?,seriously,
@@georgesikimeti2184 not far enough I'm convinced the Aussie forces couldn't save us from a wet paper bag blowing in the wind
Bout time we sent the yanks away and had an independent foreign policy. Being neutral would be best for us.
@@internethardcase Neutrality would be a disaster. Ask "neutral" countries in the 1930s how well that worked for them.
I have friend in the Australia Navy, problem isn’t the number of ship, it is where to find the crew to crew the already existing hull. They barely meet the recruitment last year and the projection is that the number will dropping this year as well. So the shipbuilding plan sound nice but unless they intend to scrap more ground unit and merge more division into 1 to allocate the manpower needed for the expansion plan, it only gonna sound good on paper.
They have had recruitment issues for 30 odd years, get told every year pay doesn't come close. They put in allowances but when you get that small time to relax on shore posting you end up broke so burn out at sea.
The crew cuts cut cruise crews and there's too few crews to crew crew cut crew for new crew cuts for the crew.
100% correct
They're finally taking the fight to those Emus.
The navalised emus are fierce
Lol
Ever met one on a dark night?
Wait till you fight the Peguins ....
The Emus are our allies now. We have joint forces against the camels
The Australian Inter-Continental Ballistic Marsupial arsenal is second-to-none. One can't blame them for taking to the water though, as it is the only place safe from the Emu menace.
Release the combat wombats!
Platypus is quite nasty it has venomous spurs on its hind legs. Plus Charlie don't surf!
Australia's defense bureaucracy hasn't gotten anything right in the last 150 years, I expect their perfect record is safe.
I spat my drink out reading this based comment. 😂
Not sure what is more worrying, people whinging about house prices or their ignorance of the importance of having a strong deterrence.
I would imagine that if China puts the screws on our trade, the same people will be crying about the fact we don't have the ability to defend ourselves.
Maybe read the white paper, there is a reason why some of the new ships can be under or unmanned. Plus as binkov mentioned, most of these will be built in Adelaide, so that's thousands of jobs.
Appreciate you binkov for providing a strong overview, although you missed touching on the upgrades for our mine fleet 👍👍
Whinging about house prices because what’s the point in defending your country if you have no stake in it? Imagine asking young people to go and defend a country they can’t afford to live or raise a family in anymore.
This is a good thing. Anyone who has played Risk knows how important Australia is strategically.
I haven't played enough my first and last game was 14 hours straight
You opinions I'm interested in hearing it
( I understand we have decent recordings)
Military Advisors: You need to expand your navy rapidly in the next couple years.
Australia: Eh... best I can do is 25 years.
Tbf unless you want a paper navy such as China’s, it takes time
Especially if you want to keep all contract domestic. The RCN in Canada has the same issue, massive ship building plans but all centred around 4 shipyards.
We already have composite crews on USN amd Royal Navy attack subs. A reasonable stop gap.
@@4jqxc you think you can pop down to the navy shop and by a 30 pack of ships?
The terms "corvette", "frigate", "destroyer" or "cruiser" are, in fact, not arbitrary.
They aren't displacement terms though, but mission capability terms:
corvette: a single task beyond surface warfare
frigate: multiple tasks beyond surface warfare, but definitive primary and auxilary tasks it can perform
destroyer: capable of all tasks beyond surface warfare as a full mission capability
cruiser: capable of all tasks beyond surface warfare as a full mission capability, but with a further extended capability for at least one mission set
There are countries who do a bit of juggling with these terms to not upset the public, but Germany and Japan and their domestic politics are not the defining powers for warship classification.
AUKUS is not pronounced you-cus, but awe-cus.
Not vitally important, but thought I'd let you know. 😁
AUKUS-awe-kus
For australia-awe-stralia
Australia, uk, us
More bots in these comments than a game of mvm, seriously the DIP missions are working overtime
You one of this bots?
I love the idea of "optionally manned" - the entire navy is already there, particularly the collins class subs. Some bureaucrat/politician comes up with the idea of "lets double the size of the navy". Some intelligent soul next to them asks "how are we going to crew them?" - "lets call them 'optionally manned'", that will solve all our problems.
Why were the Australian Canberra class helicopter carriers not put in the number of ships Australia has? We have 2 of them.
I think it was actually the Army the required it at the time. They needed an amphibious ship to transport ADF personnel and armoured vehicles and supported by helicopter within our pacific region..so only 2 was required for the amount of ADF personnel required for an amphibious force
As ex RAN, I really hope we get to 75% of this capability finished.
live in Adelaide about 10km from the proposed site for building them in the future. First we'll need to expand the drydock to compensate for the subs then probably build some kind of housing structure on top of that before we even consider building them but yeah, I hope to see a few of them ship out to sea trials from down here before I die lol. I'm already near 40, i don't think i'll last until the last one goes out but I hope to see atleast a couple in my time lol!
Time for the Kiwis to pull a little more weight.
All 12 of them?
Anzacs always!
Yeah, nah, bro. I'm not dying for this country - or yours. Auckland is majority non Anglo-Saxon now. The Asian invasion has already happened, and it had little to do with the CCP. Big Maori loots the middle class for billions in cahoots with successive governments left and right. I've got the message, ta.
Nah, we have wasted enough tax dollars on items to kill.
Look at the loyalty we got from France with the Rainbow Warrior incident.
Glad to be a Nuclear free country that supports peace not giving anyone else a reason to target us.
Its common sense to leave one land mass in the southern hemisphere, but hey common sense goes out the window when profit is at stake.
Will it also include a plan to keep current ships _fully operational_ via effective maintenance?
Because that would be nice.
And it's a quick force multiplier.
They have to… The oldest ANZAC is about to retire without proper replacement…
By the time Australia has completed these ships, WW4 will have concluded
😂lol yeah mate
That was funny😂
Good thing they left France out of it, can you imagine and alliance named AUSFUK, FUKAUS or FUKUSA?
LMAO
🤣
I think you have stumbled onto the real reason France got snubbed🤣
I'd go for the last one. 🤣
As it should. Australia needs to protect its territories.
Anyone else get the feeling we're in a second cold war, just waiting for it to go hot?
We've been in a second cold war for quite awhile. Unfortunately we didn't really pay attention until after 2014, and even then many thought it unlikely until 2022.
What are you talking about? It's already hot. When Russia went into Ukraine in 2014, the world realised they were behind. 2022 made everyone realise how woefully underprepared we all are. France and Poland have already massively increased their defence capabilities and we're somewhat behind. I am curious if reality is going to set in for Germany any time soon though, since they seem to be the lagging behind everyone else.
Yes, the yanks are itching for it, how else can they fund their military industry if not to cause chaos around the world
No, this is totally different to a cold war. This is the pre-war military buildup phase.
I get the feeling were in a pre war phase to a "second second world" war so to say, with the new axis powers of russia, China and Iran massively arming up and in russias case, already having started their insidious projects of ruthless imperialist expansion.
The limiting factor is presently crew shortages, presumably with more ships & subs those problems will get worse
You missed the two Canberra class amphibious/helicopter landing ships…….. but you mentioned China LHD’s
Yes, these are important warships and apparently both HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra are the largest (longest and heaviest) warships ever in the RAN
Yes, well… I’ll believe it when I see it.
Australia needs 18 Frigates (Hunter 2 Type), 9 Destroyers (Perth 2 Type), 9 Corvettes, 9 Nuclear Sumbarines, 9 Sumbarines (Collins 2 Type), 18 Patrol Boats, 9 Mine Hunters, 3 LPD, 3 LHD, 9 LST, 3 Supply Ships, 3 Oilers, 3 Heavy Lift Ships, 3 RoRos.
🎵 ...and a partridge in a pear tree! 🎵
That's very specific. You've put some thought into this. Curious as to how you arrived at your numbers,
@@seniorslaphead8336LOL, beat me to it!
Makes sense, Australia is an island, building out their navy makes more sense than building up their army.
Parts of the Army are essentially having their focus changed to potentially fight in the littoral zones.... just off shore or among the island chains. The idea being to prevent them making it on to the mainland and having to fight an adversary there.
We are also expanding our airforce and missile force. We don't need an army really. An army would be for invading someone else. We need a strong missile defence capability with a strong navy and airforce with a small expeditionary capability for regional stability as we are the regional power.
We don't need the capability to destroy an invading force outright. We just need enough capability to make it too risky to try it in the first place.
The timelines nowadays are laughable.
In 1950s they'd build all of this in 5 years. Now 20 years + 10 years of dealy.
A lot of reasons why:
- Platform and System Complexity
- Infrastructure
- Money
- Quality Assurance
- - Governments and Militaries are much more scrutinous(don't know if that is a word) of what they buy and invest in.
- - - US torpedoes for example
- Bureaucracy
- The Cold War was raging in the 1950s and it was a bipolar world, we are headed towards a multipolar world now and that entails different responses
There's no urgency anymore. Except the Chinese.
Edit: I'm just going to spoon-feed you since I know you won't actually look any of this up. If any modern-day major country was to actually spin up a War Economy we would be absolutely destroying any manufacturing benchmarks that were set in the 50's. The timelines are laughable because we have no need to put 100% effort into this stuff, so the vast majority of our production power goes to other, civilian industries.
You should probably research the differences in "War Economy" vs "Civilian Export Economy." Allied countries in the 50's were still weening themselves off of a war economy where many large civilian companies had shifted entire factories dedicated to producing weapons and machines, and were in the process of transitioning themselves back into civilian implements. You can't just say "lol production better in the 50's" when we've had 70 years of relative peace and no need for these types of manufacturing plants that were capable of slapping together all the parts needed for warships at an enormous scale.
@@appa609 and that urgency has led to project managers that are corrupt for instance the senior project manager of the fujian cvn was fired and arrested for corruption mainly for the acquisition of subquality steel
@@MithrralBy the time you build up all the plants to get back to 50s speed, the war might already be over. Confidence is good but a little bit of humility goes a long way too.
I thought AUKUS was pronounced like Ow-Koos, not You-Kas
Awwkis
@@bac7now kith
Americans have their own ways I guess
Would like to see Australia convert its Canberra-class to F-35B carriers.
Similar to what Japan is doing.
I am not against Australia having a F-35 jump carrier, but I don't think a conversion is practical. The Japanese designed their "helicopter destroyers" with a future F-35B conversion in mind.
Besides Australia needing the Canberra just as a LHD, there would need to be significant changes and even then it would not be optimal. For example, the landingcraft area can be better used to support F-35B operations (e.g. fuel ordnance, spare parts, etc. The elevators may have to be changed, particularly the rear elevator. The hanger deck would likely need to be changed to accomodate both helicopters and F-35B. And then there is the avionics for command and control of fighters, as oppose to helicopters mainly dealing with amphibious operations. Frankly, I think it would be cheaper to start with a clean sheet design, that or buy a jump carrier that is already optimized for teh F-35B.
@@ycplum7062the Spanish designed the boat to operate harriers, and are currently upgrading theirs for F35-B, so………
Rear elevator needs to be bigger and the landing area needs to be painted in high temperature pain…..and we could ask Navantia to do the work when they’ve finished upgrading their boat.
@@タコの王The structure of the canberra class was modified to be cheaper than the spanish one because it wasnt planned to use vstol planes, it would be cheaper to make new ships than to modify the existing ones.
Altough if the australian government would like to buy new ships from us we would be delighted.
@@タコの王
The Japanese only really needed to apply the high temp deck surface. They already had the elevators and hanger deck flow pattern all worked out. I am more concerned about the hanger deck layout.
It wouldn't take much to modify the Canberra class to do touch and gos and to refuel/rearm F-35s. Things can get tricky if you have to store, maintain , and repair F-35Bs in a Canberra class.
And with all the islands, Australia really needs a fulltime LHD to deploy and supply island garrisons.
The helicopter landing ships do have ski jumps already as a contingency.
From almost no ships to a Small number of Ships !
I love how it's easier to learn about my countries military spending from TH-cam than from my government.
Actually Australia like many democratic nations are surprising transparent with their defence policy, strategy, procurement, and threats. The only issue is they give you so much, it's sometimes a bit hard to know where to start.
@@wavavoomThis person has obviously been living under a rock.
It's kinda sad you thought that was a smart thing to say and (thus far) it's gotten 13 likes.... FFS....
15-20 years goes by pretty fast. I think this is a good long term plan.
I definitely want the Mogami for this ship. It's bigger, but with a small crew requirement still.😊
And Japan has the capacity to increase production if Australia is willing to pay…
Agreed
The Imperative for an Australian Nuclear Deterrent in the Face of China's Existential Threat.
Australia's strategic security landscape is increasingly fraught with challenges that pose an existential threat to its sovereignty. Foremost among these is China's rising military might, whose expansionist policies and aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific region have raised alarms about Australia's future stability and security. Given the current state of Australia's defence capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons emerges as a crucial strategy to deter potential aggression and ensure national survival.
Strategic Vulnerabilities and Defense Shortcomings: - Australia boasts a vast and sparsely populated coastline stretching over 25,000 kilometres, presenting a formidable challenge for defence and surveillance. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is under-equipped to secure this extensive border against a superior military force like China.
Key shortcomings include:
1. Insufficient Defense Expenditure: Australia's defence budget, while significant, is spread thin across multiple domains, resulting in a lack of advanced and comprehensive land, sea, and air deterrents. The current expenditure levels are inadequate to match the rapid military advancements seen in China.
2. Manpower Constraints: The ADF is experiencing its lowest manpower levels since World War II. This limited personnel pool hampers Australia's ability to project power and sustain prolonged defensive operations, particularly against a numerically superior foe. This is evidenced by the new Australian Foreign Legion forecast to boost recruit numbers.
3. Technological and Capability Gaps: The ADF lacks the advanced technological edge and integrated defence systems to effectively counter modern threats. This includes deficits in missile defence, cyber capabilities, and strategic mobility. The Case for a Nuclear Deterrent. In the face of these challenges, nuclear weapons offer a potent solution that can offset conventional military disadvantages and provide a credible deterrent against existential threats.
The strategic rationale for Australia to pursue nuclear armament includes:
1. Deterrence Against Superior Forces: Nuclear weapons serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling any potential aggressor to reconsider the risks of a military incursion. The mere presence of a credible nuclear arsenal can induce hesitation and strategic caution in adversaries, including China.
2. Force Multiplier: A nuclear capability would act as a force multiplier, significantly enhancing Australia’s defensive posture without needing proportional increases in conventional forces. This would enable Australia to maintain a more balanced and sustainable defence budget.
3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Possessing nuclear weapons would enhance Australia’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on allied support in times of crisis and enabling more decisive and independent defence policies.
4. Geopolitical Stability: A nuclear-armed Australia would contribute to regional stability by establishing a balance of power. This could deter China's direct aggression, coercive tactics, and geopolitical maneuvering.
Conclusion.
In a rapidly evolving security environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a compelling strategic imperative for Australia. Faced with China's overwhelming military superiority and constrained by current defence capabilities, Australia must consider a nuclear deterrent to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its vast coastline, and ensure national survival. By developing a credible nuclear arsenal, Australia can transform its strategic landscape, compelling any potential aggressor to think twice before undertaking any kinetic actions against the nation. Australia needs to grow up.
@marksullivan2230 The folly is would allies assist. With the ingress of China Yuan into the EU and China now cutting ties in trade with America the new BRICS agenda and the push with Belt and Road into the Pacific and Asia rim. 2000 yanks are useless. No I stand by my view of self defence in the nuclear age. It is also founded on frontline experience.
It is good Australia is finally stepping up it's military, however the timeframes are incredibly stupid. All 8 AUKUS submarines by 2060? That is absolutely ridiculous. I get they will be the most advanced submarine in human history but the time it is taking is a risk to Australia. We need to act faster on this and re-evaluate the timeframe to acquire these weapons.
It seems like its more of an ongoing deterrence strategy than necessarily designed to directly compete in an impending conflict. It would already be largely pretty dumb to try to invade Australia for most countries-- barring perhaps lobbing some large rocks at pine gap (which lets face it, is US territory by any reasonable measure), and they clearly want to keep it that way.
We were sold by the jews to the chinese decades ago mate. This is just money laundering and perhaps a bit of a cull operation when the riff raff get too untamed.
@@ashguy4268 you are ignoring the point of this comment, that it us taking way too long for just 8 submarines. 40 years in particular.
@@Matt_JJz I mean... I'm not ignoring it and it is ridiculous. Just suggesting that it may be fine given what they're trying to achieve. 🤷♂
@@Matt_JJz You're ignoring the fact that we're supposed to be building the submarines and as someone from the city where they're going to be built.. We haven't built the infrastructure to build the submarines yet.. You guys talk a bunch of crap without knowing the details of anything lol. Must be like a video game where you just plop down a building, connect some electricity and you're good to go, right?
We currently build surface ships down there in those shipyards they're designed around building warships not nuclear submarines.. First we have to expand the drydock area to compensate for the submarines, then we have to build the buildings where they are constructed, then we can talk about building the first one... You're looking at 7-10 years or so just for the infrastructure at its quickest I'd say. Then you have to build them 40 years is fuckin best case scenario. We're a country of 25 million and our city is just over 1.2 million of that 25. How many of them do you suppose have jobs building nuclear submarines? Yeah? clowns.
The 11 general purpose frigates will either be the German A200 frigate or the alpha 5000. The Japanese ship is probably too big and the alpha 3000 is a corvette not a frigate.
No answer to declining personnel.
Drones are unmanned. 😂
@@grosey11, that all fine if fleet was all drones but even the major combatants of existing fleet is struggling to put to sea due to lack of personnel. Doubling the fleet with vessels requiring less crew and drones will only exasperate the issue.
No where in the fleet review has it addressed how to stop the decline in retention or recruitment.
BTW, drones, even with AI still require a degree of human crewing, even if just launching and recovery.
There really isn't an option. 30% of the population are immigrants who would simply leave the country if they or their Australian-born children were conscripted. And trying to only conscript long term generational Australians would be entirely illegal and politically suicidal.
@@JohnSmith-tl8pq, agreed immigrants are an issue and conscription as you say would be political suicide, also the navy would have issues with operation and discipline with personnel who didn't want to be there by free choice.
The Australian economy has been going very well for around 25 years (excepting the COVID19 blip) and in such times military service is never going to be as appealing as it is during harsher economic times.
The best indicator that it's a good idea is the reaction from the CCP.
The issue is that the British navy is also buying undergunned ships too. This starts from their aircraft carriers on down too.
I love the mogami, they are pretty capable little frigates. I think the Japan also has its own VDS as well, from Mitsubishi or something....
I like the plan to make most of the ships locally.
I like all the negativity from Chinese bots.
Australias tomahawk missiles will be 1500+kms not 500+kms. And like china australia also have 2 lhd/helicopter carriers also.
My understanding is we are buying 3x2nd hand nuclear powered Virginia class submarines with an option to buy 2 more, we are building in partnership with the UK to build 8 new nuclear powered Aukus class submarines and the 6 conventional Collins class we already have will all be updated including updating the propulsion system, the electronic warfare system and the communication system.
Two US Virginia Class Submarines (most probably Block IV) with 1 new build (Probably Block VII) Virginia Class. The two existing subs will have at least 20 years life remaining. Which means they are amongst the recently commissioned (given a 35 year life of the boat). Australia will build 8 of the AUKUS Class boats (whatever they end up being called. The first of these are scheduled to enter service in 2043. If they are late Australia has an option to buy two more Virginia's to cover that. The Collins are going to undergo a LOTE (Life of Type Extension) gutting the subs replacing engines, electronics, communications etc as you said.
That Plush toy reminds me of Kermit the Frog suffering radiation sickness... 😂
The British genes won.
Next they take an island
Pretty soon, the Australian Navy will be more capable than the Royal Navy
Then they find their first foreign spice
Nah was the aboriginie
Ukkh, every single person who brag about genes is a racist in disguise
Great video! Being an Aussie I love that we are able to strengthen ourselves to help NATO and other allied nations! 🇦🇺
I don't know a lot about your navy, all I know is you don't want to face Aussies man-to-man 😊
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Australia is increasing its Navy. The plan is to increase it from today’s 11 ships to some 26.
But helicopter carrier?
How about a video analyzing the amphibious capability of the top navies in the world?
Hey Binkov, Galaxy Lamps sucks. Some other TH-camrs have already struggled with getting their payment and the lamps themselves often take months to arrive, sometimes arrive broken, take months more to be repaired if at all and there’s all kinds of lies. Like that it’s a realistic star map while in reality it’s just evenly spaced dots and paying for a star-like color instead of green dots is extra and all that kind of stuff.
These guys are bad news. And I heavily dislike you not doing any research on them prior to sponsoring them.
Also that “sale” is a 24/7 all year kind of sale.
Hey binkov could talk about that new Chinese super sam with alleged range of 2000 kilometres
The problem is these navies are 10-15 years behind building enough destroyers, frigates and submarines to put up a Prolong substantial war against china in the pacific. If I could see this war coming 10 years ago, then why couldn't these leaders, who are now terrified of chinas rocket force and Navy see it? We dont have enough surge capacity for munitions or to build and replace ships in the pacific. Again I'm not a 4 star admiral or a Long term serving member in congress.
The adf has really strict recruitment standards even for basic roles and will knock back many recruits if they don't meet those standards, that can be directly blamed for the shortage they now face.
They want the right people in command of all those robotic weapons platforms
Have had those standards for 40 years. I applied for both Airforce and Navy and got knocked back on weight to height requirements. I was 1.78m but only 60 kg. I force fed myself for 6 months but never put weight on. Now in my early 60's I wish I could get below 72 kg again.
The standards are not that high, if you go to the gym for 6 months you could enlist fairly easily.
Their problems are with retention. They still need to increase wages, culture and healthcare (including mental health).
Not to mention our crazy high migration and those don't want to fight or defend this country they have no loyalty to it. They want money jobs not war
The increasingly woke leadership of the ADF doesn't help with recruitment & neither did the mandated jibby jabs...... straight out the door for any refusals, even if you had doctor backed exemptions. Personnel leaving early and sooner than planned, making sure anyone they know or asks about joining the ADF gets the unvarnished truth....... yeah that explains the recruiting shortfall.
The question is, when will they have completed these ships and ready for commissioned?
billion dollar question. oh wait they havent even allocated a budget for their wishlist. lot of consultant fluff with no actual meat.
let's not even talk about the elephant in the room -> recruiting personnel (skilled workforce for shipyards, sailors, maintenance, etc...) which all western navies are having hard time to cope with.
Australia is actually decent at building ships. When it comes to sophisticated subs and massive infrastructure projects not so much.
Our sailors currently form composite crews on nuclear attack subs with our allies. Shares our sub bases too. A reasonable stop gap.
Very interesting video, good work.
Also have a heli carrier
TWO
I’m genuinely surprised by how ignorant some of these comments are, like people we need to stop relying on allies to defend us. Just like WW2 when we relied on the British to protect us from Japan and guess what happened they couldn’t. Like we aren’t far away a Chinese ICBM can reach us in less than 2 minutes. In the missile age we need to have Domestic capability of producing and operating our own Military force capable of protecting our national interests and the Australian homeland itself. We need to be able to protect shipping lanes from foreign powers influence. The fact that people can’t see this is beyond comprehension.
You hit the nail on the head CAPABLE OF PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL INTREST, great words, the government has never spent on defense "it won't happen to us" is their mindset, now they are scrambling to get equipment which we can ill afford let alone maintain, our defense forces couldn't even protect the Sydney Opera House in an attack we do not have the weapons or manpower
Protect our trade with China, from China?
Australia relied British in ww2? 😂😂😂😂😂 Britain run away from Japanese in Singapore do you think they can protect Australia 😂😂
You missed that Australia also has two Canberra-class landing helicopter docks @ 27,500 Tonnes that can (and should) be converted to fixed wing aircraft carriers.
He really didn't miss them. The tonnage comments were about surface combatant ships which the Canberra class is not part of. The only time he really covers LHD type ships is when talking about if X country could invade Y country.
F35B?
With current and projected recruitment levels? Nah they’d have to be semi autonomous to be deployed
The funniest shit about Australia is that it must defend its biggest trading partner from its biggest trading partner.
The same thing is happening in most Asia-Pacific countries. If only China is not that greedy...
The U.S. is increasing its manufacturing base at its fastest rate in history (saw the statement, and it included WW2).
It is already cheaper to manufacture in north America than china (when shipping is included). So with Australia still heavily raw material exporting china might not be Australias largest partner for too long
@@jacquie212what delusion is this? I’ll have some.
@nhatho1723 reply with a real friggin response and don't be a tool. His assessment was logical, your reply nonsensical.
You trade with them because the west is apathetic and can overlook what China does to an extent if they can still get their cheap tat. Once millions of drones start blocking out the sky and sentient AI terror cults start popping up and God knows what else, people will still be apathetic.
That doesn't mean they won't one day just take you if you didn't have a means of defending yourself.
Utopia is a comedy, not geopoltics.
Cold Wars are very expensive. A major power war in the Pacific would be devastating
Wars also boost the economy, like WWII ended the great depression
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yup didn't England just finish paying off its dept from WW2..
There was a time weapons were made to fight wars,, now wars are manufactured to sell weapons.
@@kiwibonsai2355 wars aren't manufactured , they are started by warmonger regimes like Russia and china, the economic benefits to some countries are coincidental
We should collaborate with them on the corvette and build 100s of them with a focus on combatting subs and naval drones.
Australia should transfer the Advanced Cape Class boats from the RAN to Border Force then the RAN should be a war fighting body with corvettes, frigates and destroyers. We should lease decent German type 216 diesel electric subs until the nuclear subs come online. Border Force should focus on borders and patrol boats.
China has pulled the sleeping lion's tail. They've decided to massively enlarge their military but expected everyone else in the neighborhood to remain calm and not to invest in their own capabilities..
Its the same mistake hitler and the other axis leaders made. They armed up and increased their militaries, boasting their strength and arrogantly starting wars with powerful and numerous foes, only to fond themselves hopelessly outmatched and defeated at the end.
The yoocas agreement?
It's pronounced: _potato_
Future ships need much larger missile loads. Size should be a bit bigger. Or automation to reduce crew numbers. And have room for future technologies. Such as drones.
They also need to be reliable and cost effective.
Lol Australia is going big in drones and is ahead of even the USA in this field, MQ28A Ghost Bat, now is Ghost Shark a AI submarine using Ghost Bat Australian AI.
Are AI Australian drones in Ukraine now also.
is AI vtol helicopter, AI M113A also. Australia testing AI trucks as resupply vehicles now also. they use 1 human driven front truck and the AI trucks follow.
Is a old Australian navy patrol ship being converted to AI so can test full sized war ships as AI operated.
Is a scramjet powered hypersonic drone taking flight this or next year by Australia also.
You can see already quite quickly volume is a huge flaw in these systems.
The concept of minimal numbered large systems is quite tricky.. they should have another two types of vessels, both similar to aircraft carriers.. one just completely full of missile tubes and chain guns, and another just full of drones, medium, small, large.. unmanned aircraft.
Aus aircraft can field from 4-10 air to air missiles, and up to 400 rounds.. they have 3 main types of planes.. 72 f35a, 24 super hornet, 11 growlers.. wiki says 84, lets go with that.. you would run out of missiles and bullets before downing the sea of drones given the price points.
I can see the new australian 3000t frigate being the UK type 31 which could be inserted in the middle of the royal navy 5 ship order already. Ship is a lot bigger than the others, being british where the australian industry already have some industry connection to the uk with the type 26 with BAE. Wouldn't require much for them to gain indstry connection to babcock type 31 project which is heavily marketted by babcock for exports while also only costing £286m per despite being a decent size of 5600t 138m ship.
After the experience of the type 21 and BAE, Australia won’t touch British for a very long time
Too expensive. And after the type 26 issues of integrating systems that RAN require it will delay the delivery of getting type 31 with similar issues.
I believe for tier 2 it will be 11 ships of Navantia Alpha 5000 frigate 5400T fully loaded with 32 cell VLS and CEFAR-2 radar system that has already been developed into it's design.
I believe the next government will scrap the 6 optional crewed vessels and upgun the type 26 to 96 cell VLS and use the 6 ships as new destroyers or will cancel the program altogether and build 3 more F100 class AWDs instead.
I also believe AUKUS sub deal will collapse due to shortages of US and UK delays and Australia will have to go to plan C and build 12 new son of collens that has VLS into its design to fire tomahawks and ADF may require a squadron of B21 bombers to fill the capability they seek
Need to build the navy up for the future australiastan
Lol Indonesia be like oh hell no stay off from my backyard
rant: i doubt Australia Military would ever consider Indonesia other than an ally. they do wargames with them every yr so...
Indonesia probably have ceremonial tours inside these new Aussie ships- or have some fancy dinner on them- Indonesia would love Australia to have a massive navy- other then themselves having it hehe
Indo are also para about the Chinamen
Indonesia is an ally of Australia.
@@mnm8818Indonesia is not an ally, it’s a threat, that’s why they will never be sold modern gear from Australia. We sell them outdated equipment as they can’t fully be trusted. We are at risk of having conflict with them right now as they’re attacking other pacific island nations as we speak. You really should look past the news mate.
@@jimmyTimtamwow Australia successfully break apart Indonesia to get gas field and now trying to break apart west Papua from Indonesia.
When Indonesia executed Australian drug dealers we ask to get our aceh tsunami donation back. When we have refugee crisis we sent warship to Indonesia borders....
Is that what ally do?
It's odd not to see the UK's Type 31 as an option for the smaller frigates, I guess it's just too big.
A navy guy once explained to me that Corvette/Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser no longer refer to displacement, generally (although, as a rough guide corvettes are the smallest while cruisers are the largest). Corvettes and Frigates are ASW/surface warfare oriented (with some self-defense AAA) with corvettes being more like light coastal defense ships while frigates are true blue water ships. Destroyers are intermediate craft that can do the work of frigates and cruisers with frigates doing that job cheaper while destroyers do the cruiser job cheaper but less effectively (basically a "jack of all trades"). Cruisers are pretty much air-defense focused (although they can do some ASW stuff, especially with their helicopters) and are carrier/major ship escorts. Cruisers are generally more capable and bigger craft than destroyers, and are thus way more expansive in both $$ and manning.
The term Cruiser will be dead by 2027 with the retirement of the last Ticonderoga from the USN. The next generation Destroyers are all 160m+ and 11-12,000t, ships are being designated as Frigates anywhere, from 3000 to 11000t, Corvettes from 1500-4000t, OPVs from 500-5000t.
Terminology of ship types was never about displacement; it was about a ships role and the firepower it carried.
Going back to WW2, and this is when the terminology came into being, you had.
Heavy Cruisers, fitted with 8-9 eight-inch guns, a heavy torpedo load and displaced 10,000-20,000t, top speed 30-32kt.
Light Cruisers fitted with 8-12 six-inch guns a heavy torpedo load and displaced 7-15,000t, top speed 32-35kt.
Destroyers fitted with 3-6 four-to-five-inch guns and a heavy torpedo load and displaced 1500-3000t with a top speed of around 35kt.
Frigates fitted with 1-3 four-to-five-inch guns a heavy ASW load and displaced 1200-2500t but only a top speed of 20-21kt.
Destroyer Escorts was the name the USN used instead of Frigates.
Corvettes fitted with 1-2 three-to-four-inch guns and a heavy ASW load, displaced 500-1500t and a top speed of 20-21kt.
The post war USN Worcester class Cruisers were 202m and 18,000t but were designated as Light Cruisers because they only carried six-inch guns.
Australia has no strategic fuel reserves as it has privatised and stupidly closed most of its oil refineries, it also has no merchant fleet of its own. The decision to expand the fleet is like buying a car without an engine.
Cuz you'd know military strategy better than the chief of navy
About 30 days worth.
You can thank the hegemony for draining our money and exploiting our natural resources.
@@vabtab2710 My cat knows better strategy than the chief of the navy here.
@@vabtab2710The only strategy he has is spending Billions on failed projects with his politician mates.
No strategic reserve, no refining capacity and less than 30 days fuel in the country. Australia would be paralysed in a major conflict.
It needs to increase because they need to make up for the fact we kiwis don't own a navy so we need them to not only defend us sir wise but also sea wise.
Make noise to your politicians about upping defence spending.
Don't be like us Brits who are castrating all our capabilities.
@@BroadHobbyProjects we own planes from the Vietnam war, don't think we're going to crank things up suddenly
@@snigie1lol Ye NZ probably should I vest in some capable naval assets though for sure.
It's much easier to form ground based formations with kit than to build ships or aircraft. Especially modern ones.
That's why I get annoyed when people moan about spending "too much" on the military saying we can just build stuff when we need them in the event of a war.
They don't realise it takes a couple of years to get a modern ship to get built and longer to get it's crew capable to use such an advanced ship.
Better to have a powerful navy, air force and medium sized army that is highly specialized with good numbers of part time soldiers or reserves.
How is the airforce going? Yes geographical isolation has worked so far. But ballistic missiles, hypersonics, naval build up has made the world a smaller place.
@@grosey11 we have guns, like rifles, is that OK?
As an aussie who has been around a few decades, none of this will happen, the cost is half what it will be before anything hits the water. This deal is for union jobs in manufacturing thats it.
Do submarine versions of military drones exist that could replace the need for manned submarines?
The thumbnail is actually incorrect. Australia isn't that close to the Asia coastline
Considering Austrailia was attacked by Japan in WWII, i'd say Asia is close enough.
Time period is waaaay too long.
We need 4 more dry docks and associated shedding etc.
Well I guess you better get to work then.
@@THE-X-Force I pay my taxes!
For that size of the country their navy is incredibly small.
So is our population hence how much money we can spend.
This all should have been started a decade ago, things are going too become tense in this region in the next decade or sooner.
Nobody predicted that tensions would escalate so rapidly. In 2014 (a decade ago) Australia and China were very strong business partners, and whilst have/had differences everyone was more willing to work together.
Later in 2014 the CCP started a new tactic of diplomacy that became known as "Wolf warrior diplomacy" and with that started the beginning of the end to everyone's respect towards China and by 2018 (4 years later) Australia had to find new business partners to work with.
It was around this time the US had a president that continuously preached about not supporting other countries and destroying deals.... It's hard to know who is going to support you in times like that.
The defence review took years of extensive analysis to determine the best way forward for the ADF, yes, these things realistically take too long, but you also have to ensure the decision you make is the correct one.
I guess only time will tell and hopefully war will not happen.
Two decades ago
After a decade in the Navy recently , it'll never work. The standards of work and crewing are a shambles.
Are we just going to forget about their 2 helicopter carriers? 🙄
Ooh we will have 10 boats instead of 5. Winning
26 instead of 11
@@cherrythegoat you forgot to account for the low recruitment rates and parts inventory 😂
I personally think they will leave the Hunter class frigates as they are for sub defence, new frigates will increase fire power. Japanese Frigate Magumo class is the best and like most Japanese ships, more suitable for Australia and the broader Pacific region. We are very lucky America and others are sharing their crown jewels with us.
Yes but Japan english is very bad translating all those manuals would be impossible, i used to remember reading all teh mistakes in the NINTENDO game books from terrible translations, it makes it so complicated because no western person can write perfect Japanese and no Japan person can really write and read in perfect english its rare. plus there subs and ships have low range, look at there sub its only 40 percent the range of a Collins thats a huge difference
I’m surprised Australia didn’t buy a few Los Angeles class subs. I would find a few that still have 2-5 years left on their life.
They would be out of life before crews were trained.
Angry Chinese bots... Chinese bots everywhere...
Is this really Binkov's fanbase
💀
The new axis has total online domination. Just accept it.
When you don't agree with them call them bots... You more like bots than them. Or at least they more advanced bots than you.
@@anubizz3 they are very clearly bots, mate. Sorry your insignificant brain can’t comprehend that.
UK🤝AUS let's go lads! Now if only Canada would get their heads out of their arse and give us CAUKNZ (yeah I dropped seppo-land for New Z, because why not)
We need more Hobart classes
We need more Hobart like Destroyers,
But the Hobarts will be outdated within 10 years. We need something better.
@@captain61games49 True, but it should be an updated Hobart, not a modified Hunter. Why build an expensive ASW quietened hull to then add VLS and not have a VDS? IMO the Hunter program has been misconceived.
I’d argue the same for the Daring Class of my Country 🇬🇧
Maybe if the Type 83 program develops well the Aussies could get a variant of it too.
To be fair those optionally crewed vessels are going to have Aegis, they are some kind of smaller DDG to an extent, depending how they turn out i would not be surprised if we end up with twice as many unmanned vessels to manned vessels as our future surface combatant fleet.. The first 6 will be to see how well they can be integrated into our ADF including with our Airforce like F-35, E-7A Wedgetails, P-8A's and other unmanned aircraft, land based radars also forward deployed special forces on islands targeting for them etc, if they can be integrated and utilised by all our ADF branches then we will definitely see more built..
@@captain61games49 FLIGTH III Navantia Australia.
Knowing AU, it would likely take them 3x the money and 2x the time to achieve half of that.
Military procurement here is a political football, unlike the dictatorships.
Corrent and 90 percent chance that will happen... the Hobart 3 billion AUD cost ended up being the same cost as a Burke that was 40 percent bigger .... so what did AUS save in cost savings by buying a smaller ship... the blame passing began.... They have such small orders that there is no economy of scale anyway and no fixed priced contract
2050s jesus, that's a bit too long no?
Don't worry. 2050 will be here sooner than you think. Time is a runaway freight train.
If shit gets real, these plans could be accelerated.
With all the money spent on the Bavy, Australia could have a very respectable space program.
We need three satellites for surveillance and targeting, in equatorial orbit to cover our north.
Yeah, we've got plenty of space cadets
The new FFM (Mogami-Class) seems like the best option for Australia for the their new frigate class
@@LeonAustThe New Mogami should have space for 32-48 in her bow; her substantially lower crew needs are a big selling point for the RAN given the recruitment issues
A company I worked for was bidding on an Australian navy contract. It stipulated that we would not use any local labor whatsoever. This made the bid significantly more expensive than using local labor. I asked why. The Navy rep said that the labor was all union and there were so many walkouts and strikes that it would significantly delay the project. Therefore, they used as much foreign imported labor as they could to stay on time. They can make all the plans they want, but this is worse than the British car industry before that all went away.
All the same, (you're right) anything different would be worse
Defence procurement is a political football here.
@@grosey11 Thats more than half the problem, give military a budget, not to quibble about, and let them choose what they want, without political or public service interference
I call bulls**t.
If this were true, then you should provide proof to the media, I know "The Australian" would be interested in proof of what you claim, and I'm sure "The Guardian" would be interested in trying to disprove any conclusions drawn by the former.
Or, in other words, front up or shut up.
@@alexlanning712 ummm indonesia with almost 300 million people has a defence budget of 7 billion USD Australia has 26 million people with a budget of 37 USD billion.... and your telling people thats not enough.... defence already gets TOO much, you could save 40% in one week by getting rid of all the ex military people on GOV boards and on military company pay rolls that dont do whats best for the country... things like buying a Tiger Helicopter for a huge price then scraping it claiming its EURO and high cost SO WHY did defence buy it i wonder they get there wish list to the GOV not the other way around , its defence that wastes GOV money... Hobart class ship building another example Spain built the same ship at half the cost AUS paid , there a rich country how is that so i wonder
Perhaps if the Royal Australian Navy are building up their fleet by that much and are purchasing so much Equipment and ships from the UK The British Royal Navy would themselves be like: hmm if the Aussies can build up by that amount why can’t we too.
I recon this huge Australian build up could be a wake up call for the RN and the MoD to actually fix the terrible state of our Fleet.
It’s time for a CANZUK 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿fleet to be a 3rd Western global Defence Force similar to USA and EU.
Edit: well now that we are gonna up our defence spending to 2.5% perhaps this isn’t impossible now.
what about the duds that both the UK and USN have sold us that are rustbuckets adn are sitting port cant cdeploy? adn the duds they have built for their own fleets 3 billion pound aircraft carriers, nuke boats that cant fire missiles properly, littoral ships etc etc
@@keithprinn720 Russia clearly has problems with its defence acquisition, or Ukraine would be no more, and it's unlikely everything the Chinese are building really functions as advertised. But Frigates, Destroyers, Submarines and Drones of all manners that share platforms between CANZUK members would make sense. If you want a rust bucket, look at the Aircraft Carriers the Russians managed to flog to India and China. Both countries have worked out they'd have been better off building their own from scratch.
what build up lol, some of the ships/subs are p[planned for 2050s what fing joke :/, anything in the 2040s is too.. or even somewhat the 2030s :/
@@bencoad8492 if the Maritime infrastructure is fixed that Tory governments destroyed decades back then maybe the rate of construction could improve.
It's 90% BS. Just look at the track record.
Most of these ships won't be built and the ones that are built will be decades late.
A leopard doesn't change its spots.
It might change its spots if a Chinese Tiger roars.
The Navantia flight three destroyer, even though just a concept could have been a terrific acquisition.
it would of been far cheaper and more reliable with no risk... 80 percent commonaility would saved so much and why wouldnt you just use Spain for most of your fleet it makes it easier anyway when most of the Navy is built by Navantia ... there sub s-80 pus was big enough for AUS too 1 billion each was still a good deal when you consider France got 4 billion for the contract to cancell for nothing
It’s about time.
I hope the UK is taking notes
We still have the issue of not being able to actually recruit enough troops.
@@lamsmiley1944Navy doesn't use troops. 😂
Who cares, you know exactly what I meant, and my point is valid.
@lamsmiley1944 China is also having trouble getting enough people to man their ships.
But with a country of a billion people that can be solved pretty quickly.
Its all talk at the moment.
Naval warfare is not just about the number of hulls you can deploy.
Can you maintain them properly? (Russia?)
Can you crew them with well trained crews? (Russia again)
And - and I think most importantly- are you a traditionally maritime power? Or (as John Keegan so eloquently put it) are your a society ‘born to the sea?’
The UK, USA, Japan and Australia and even the ROK are such nations with those strong links to the ocean AND fighting at sea that Russia and - I would suggest- the PRC lack (although not as badly in the PRC’s case)
We feared German naval
expansion in both world wars and the USSR’s in the Cold War and , whilst both were a threat, they never amounted to a true challenge to the Maritime powers.
Yes the theory of maritime vs land based powers comes in here. Maritime powers need to establish or join trading coalitions and rules-bas d orders because they can afford their navies based on expanded trade. Land based powers can expand their territories by grabbing neighbouring nations' territories. It is therefore good that Australia is a maritime trading nation as we benefit from a stable world with a rules-based order.
Wow they’ll have more than the UK
UK has 68
No, they won't...
@@NathansWargames The Aussies will have more frigates and destroyers. I’m talking about actual fighting ships here.
The confusion regarding classing ships as frigates or destfoyers stems from a misunderstanding of tradition.
In many navies ship classes are generally based upon size, with frigates being smaller than destroyers. In the Royal Navy however the custom was to class ships by function. Ships whose primary role is antisubmarine warfare are considered frigates. That's why it is not unusual for British frigates (and the frigates of navies traditionally part of the Empire or Commonwealth) to be either larger or smaller than destroyers. Class based on role, not size.
3 Hunter Class CANCELLED
6 OPVs CANCELLED
2 Anzac Class DECOMMISSIONED
Army projects CANCELLED
AirForce projects CANCELLED
6 Hunter Class sometime in 10 years
11 General Purpose Frigates sometime in 15 years
6 USV ships sometime in 20 years
8 Nuclear Submarines sometime in 25 years
Maybe.......
ADF footing the Crown's COVID bill, lol.