The irony is that the diesel-electric submarines ordered from France were derived from the Suffren class which had been designed from the outset to be nuclear powered.
The problem was that anything nuclear was a no go to Australia. But Going from a nuke sub to a conventional sub is basically re-designing the whole sub. And a fact of life is that no project in France goes fast. So with no convential variant emerging in time...Australia jumped ship.
@@dwwolf4636 Selling nuclear powered subs to Australia was not a problem for France. On the other hand, the USA had severely criticised France for its participation in the Brazilian nuclear submarine programme. Washington had accused Paris of laxity in nuclear proliferation while the French are just manufacturing the hull and the non nuclear equipments. No wonder that even a man as subservient to the US as Macron considered himself betrayed.
@@monnezzapromizoulin5169 Needs do change over time, I am not defending how our government handled the switch but I do think long term it is more in line with what we need. The Australian public is generally pretty conflicted on the France fiasco due to slipping time lines, slashing of promises to local contract workers and general budget blow out but I do see why the french are pissed. Better minds than I needed to be the fucking adults at the table and at least sent a memo. Maybe france could have just sold us nuclear subs? Who knows at this point.
@@monnezzapromizoulin5169 the French kept moving the goal posts. They quoted one price, then it ballooned to almost twice as much. With lifetime sustainment costs included, the cost would have been $130 BILLION!!! They also promised a certain amount of local build in Australia only to later reneg on it. There was huge resentment at how snobby and lazy the French were as well. Part of the reason for winning was underhanded lobbying - the French hired an ex-ASC higher up/ex- govt official to lobby. No one should’ve been surprised at the French being given the boot
@@khaldrago911 The contract with Naval Group started to be discussed in 2016 and was finally signed in 2019, but even after this signing its terms and the specifications of the submarines never stopped being discussed by Cambera. Naval Group has been working hard to save the deal, even adapting its submarines with American weapons. This explains the significant increase in the programme's costs. Let me make a bet: when Australia finally gets its subs (if it ever does) they will be the most expensive subs in the world.
I second this. Great perspective from a sailor. I recall Sub Brief did touch on the training and readiness required to run nuclear subs, as well as the recent scare on a US nuclear powered sub experiencing damage in South China Sea and the dangerous, shifting geography of the oceans in this region. Another incident worth mentioning is the Indonesian Navy's tragic loss of a sub and all souls on board during a training mission. I'm not confident Australia's navy would have the same level of readiness with this new hardware given how dangerous the region's oceans are to subs.
@Ozzie climate refo It’s a common problem among western nations, who have convinced themselves that the days of war with peers are over. It’s not like they actually intend to use the purchases they make in a hot war. Defence spending is no longer about defence and more about shovelling graft into the pockets of the MI complex. The Oz situation really illuminated that.
That is why they are to built at BAe Australia Shipyard is it not. The UK immediately authorised £250 Million to be spent on a replacement for the Astute Class even though they are not yet all built. My understanding was that a new facility was to be produced and that Australians will be working with BAe UK, Barrow and Rolls Royce in the UK on the last Astute Class to gain work experience before construction of the RAN Boats. That was the reason for the long lead time!
@@trevorhart545 yeah, Australia and the UK should look at the next build together. There is some talk of Australia leasing some LA class from the US in the meantime. Maybe (if the timing and requirements worked out) a joint Aus/US/UK project would be good. Japan and India could also be interested but the more the more difficult the project could become.
@@somethinglikethat2176 We wont lease the LA class. The "talk" is from journalists and politicans who don't know what they are talking about. It will take 10-15 years to be ready to receive a nuclear boat if they were starting right now. As it is it's likely another 5-10 years before we actually start actually training staff and building facilities which would push things back to a 15 - 20 timeframe and the US would have to alter several laws around their submarines to make it legal to transfer it into RAN. Aus and the UK will most certainly share a boat at some point, uniform ships across NATO country's to keep costs down has been pushed by the UK for decades now. A shared Nuclear boat would go along way for the UK to showcase it's strengths.
unavailability of UK docks is due to the fact that the only shipyard making subs in the UK is Barrow, and it is at full capacity for the next 30 years at least.
Dude, I've been reading about this some recently...and then one of my favorite TH-cam channels drops a video on it! Absolutely *love* all the different topics you've been exploring lately. Keep it up!
While interesting, you appear to be wrong regarding the cancellation of the next gen submarine. It is my understanding that the contract had phase reviews built in, at which time either party could decide not to proceed it was in light of one of these phase reviews that Australia decided not to continue, bear in mind each phase was paid for.. However the way it, at least publicly was telegraphed, could have been more diplomatic.
The decision itself cannot be questioned - it was clearly the right thing to do. But PR failures and a less-than-honest appearance made it look terrible.
5 very firm, clear warnings isn't diplomatic enough, they were arrogant and thought they could bully us into staying. We made it incredibly clear they were the issue
@@Semajsenrab72 From my reading the French were failing to deliver on promises -cost was rising and less was to be built in Australia. I strongly suspect the French always knew they could not meet the contract at the price and were dishonest.
with regard to the french contract - while the french would understandably never be happy about its cancellation there is a polite and a not-so-polite way to go about it. scummo appears to have used dutto as his speechwriter on this occasion.
Tbf the french gonna be ultra-pissed anyway; they seem to get very emotional about business. Their Naval Group is one of the most corrupt, rotten military conglomerates in the west, yet they act like someone besmurched their honour... Same time theyre happy selling weapons to countries comitting genocides. Heck, some of the russian tanks striking Ukraine right now use french optical systems!
French were pissed off mostly because they shared their deepest design secrets/specification in the understanding they would build a strong partnership in the pacific with Australia(which is important for France). Now, these secret files have for sure been given to the US, for nothing).
I dont agree with you sir, i dont know what the media has been like down under, but here in the UK this sub deal with france and then us and usa has been massive news. And whilst the contract was abruptly cancelled, it was at that point in serious troubble, the contracts were YEARS behind schedule, with nothing yet delivered and 2 should have been, they were going 125% over budget, had serious design difficlties modifing parts of the subs for state of the art equipment, and we wont mention they were FRENCH, who see a dinner table and see an opertunity to have a wine and lunch, the very same people who when the goverment suggested a 70mph speed limmit, went out and ripped 100% of cameras on the motorways nationwide (no i aint kidding they destroyed every motorway camera there was) Even if the contract had continued the french had made it clear all in all the delays would amount to 5 years and no new subs before 2024. The contract with the french as you might imagine had more holes in it than a british teabag. All in all this is a good deal for AUS, and in a sence will make them more flexible in joint operations, afterall the french command and control systems are 100% incompatible with western systems
Since you worked on the Collins class, do you know how many there are? At first, it sounded like 6 were made in Australia and just maybe, a couple more were made in Britain. But at 16:21 he says..."the Australian navy has had trouble staffing the FIFTY EIGHT large Collins submarines" That does not sound right at all, as that would mean Australia has the world's third largest submarine fleet. Can you clarify?
You'll love the Electric Boat Nuclear Subs. They're the BEST. A little pricey but you'll get your money's worth. Long range, silent, long life, roomy, high tech, able to carry plenty of missiles and torpedoes, special forces, top quality radars/sonars, and many more. Just make sure you train all your sailors, mechanics, technicians, captains, oh Nuclear technicians/mechanics. You all should send some young builders over here in Groton where their built to train to build them and all just mentioned. Have a few older experienced submarine builders too so they can train Australians builders. Due to the military threats from China and Russia You're going to need to keep up with this continously so you may need your crews very well trained and willing to work 3 shifts teams. China is really ramping up their military might. And their encroaching into every strategic locations. Military bases. So get your leaders, politicians, universities, and population ready before its too late. Also build your economy. You'll need your population working to provide your country wealth, health, and technologies. Move FOREWARD. Not Backward or Stagnation.
Something worth mentioning is that the submarines the Japanese were offering would have had their hull lengthened in order to extend their operational range. I knew this whole deal was going to ultimately go no where when they rejected the Japanese offer for the French one. The Japanese offer was simply better.
The Japanese didn't have the industrial capacity to deliver the submarines within the timeframe the Australians set. Because the island is so demilitarized, Japan's military industry could only deliver one submarine every two years under ideal circumstances. So these submarines wouldn't make it to the Australian Navy within the timeframe necessary.
@@dennistani1986 That's because the australian kept changing the specs. Our weapon industry is extremly competent, the main issue is that we are more used to making nuclear powered submarine.
Sydney was a Terrible ship and Melbourne was a Majestic one. The Vengeance was only on loan from 1952-55 while Melbourne was being completed, which took about 8 years because they kept adding new Technology including a new Island, Angled flight deck, Steam Catapults and a Mirror landing system, the cost skyrocketed and the increase in size and cost of new Aircraft meant that Sydney's conversion was cancelled and she was relegated to Troop Tpt. In a more perfect world we could have rebuilt Sydney and kept Vengeance as a troop Tpt, Vengeance was never re-commissioned into the RN and was rebuilt and sold to Brazil
For those not aware Sydney was originally to be named HMS Terrible and Melbourne HMS Majestic, thus the pun. They and 4 sisters where sill under construction when WW2 ended. and no longer wanted by the RN were sold off to Australia, Canada and Netherlands.
Isn't it mind boggling that ASC were able to brush off the silent operation requirement--akin to the customary requirement for bombers to fly high or for fighters to be fast--up to the point when a whole bloody submarine was completed, and then literally 'heard' from all the way up in the air by an aircraft? "Na she'll be alright mate, look at the size of the fakken SONAR!"
The Collins Class submarines actually beat the low acoustic contract requirements for speeds that are used to infiltrate harbours. In fact they are the quietest in the world. The Collins class submarines are noisy at cruising speed, not because of their diesel engines but due to the shape of the hull. The Collins class submarines are based on a Swedish sub which don't normally travel at speed and so that is how the Collins class became noisy at cruising speeds.
Amazing video dude! You Americans are so passionate about military, it's nice to see you guys paying attention to our situation. (I find very few Aussies want to really talk about it in detail). I wish we doubled our capacity so that we could really help out our allies moreso than we do now.
Seems like the Ukraine war has made many western countries including the US realize that they've been lacking and relying on the US too much. (Was reading comments from some soldiers from Germany and UK and they said their logistics need to improve. Also weapon procurement in Germany is a beaucratic hell hole.) We can't even keep up with orders. (Especially Lockheed. Where the hell does all the money go? Expand your fucking manufacturing base). As an American citizen I want our allies to have their own defense industry and be self reliant. Globalization is both a blessing and a curse in this regards. We are learning Russian weapons use a lot of western components. I think all countries can take a page from Isreal, Sweden, and South Korea. I don't expect everyone to turn into Poland who is going ham gobbling up weapons but its nice to have a goverment that supports a robust defense industry that has a lot of highly skilled and specialized workers. I wish I had information on how many companies are involved directly and indirectly in the production of a single F-35. From those who create the materials to those who build the computers.
According to the announcement, it looks like your wish may be granted. You're supposed to be getting the Virginia Class, and later the Aukus Class that the UK is working on.
Thank you for telling the truth about the Collins class. I know friends who served and worked on them and said they were first class at the end of the life. I hope the next class will be better and local.
As a follower of this topic, I would say thank you for a well researched, and clear overview. Nuclear is the only option for propulsion if we are to have capability to reach out. It’s also the only realistic option in terms of underwater time to keep our troops safe.
The problem Australia has always had is that we've always wanted a conventional sub to do the job of a nuclear sub. The collins eventually did that, but the French sub would have been the same design risk all over again. At least with the nuclear sub we can just choose a proven design. I suspect the challenge will be operating and maintaining them rather than building them.
The real challenge will be finding something useful for them to do. Australia doesn't need nuclear propulsion for subs unless we plan to invade somewhere.
Way better deal to build a capable sub deterrent on nuke and not diesel .Forget battery power as Aus 25,000 mil coastline and both Pacific and East Indian Ocean make nukes the only way to go. Alright for the French to sail happily around the Med or nosey around the English channel . The idea of a Frankenstein French nuke boat made to operate like a big ass diesel and still be viable was silly..The yank stuff is very cool as long as those fit and forget US reactors get installed.
@@ianando9459 That makes no sense. Australia doesn't need subs patrolling its coastline. Surface ships are far better suited for that job, and Aus has designed and built some pretty good ones. Subs would be used to interdict supply missions, and nuclear propulsion wouldn't help that mission at all.
@@SocialDownclimber Subs in peacetime serve as intelligence elements mostly. If you need a certain projection and intelligence by sea you need to have subs. In case you have nukes and want to have full projection, the same thing. Electric diesels on the other hand have come a long way, especially in support systems and improvement of their acoustic footprint.
It’s been a complete mess. The coalition government completely stuffed up the program, ruined our relationship with the French, offended the Japanese in 2016 and now, somehow, we’ve ended up with nuclear-powered subs from the UK and US while causing concern for our neighbours in the north and in the Pacific. 🤷♂️
It isn't about the government per say it's about how we procure that's the problem, we conduct lengthy studies then start a process to deliver the outcome over a period of decades, this may have worked in the past but the current geopolitical situation is changing far too quickly for such a process to be viable, whatever we chose would have been obsolete even before it was built and we should have gone to the top shelf right from the start but local considerations precluded that option. And "causing concern" for our neighbours is the point, we don't want to be seen as an easy target that would make a bigger power think that it could easily take us, it's about making them think twice and looking elsewhere.
I wondered how long it would be before "muh Labor, muh Liberal, hurkadurka" raised it's ugly head. Scomo displayed great leadership when he binned the diesels and refocused the effort on nuclear subs, because suddenly the whole game has changed and that's what we now need. And no, I don't even vote.
Australia has never had nuclear-powered anything before: no ships, sub, power stations. The threat environment has changed very rapidly for Australia, so the diesel boats are no longer a fit. The strategic imperatives now outweigh domestic resistance to nuclear energy.
this whole thing was a mess since the french offered to build a nuclear sub first then the austrailians insisted it had to be a long range diesel, so they heavily modified the design to fit diesels instead, only for the US to offer up nuclear again and austrailia to change its mind again. All in all the french did a lot of work and are pissed off but I think this will pass eventually, alliances are stronger than a few incidents
The French were paid for all the work they did. That contract was completed on both ends. The extended part to build this new design was not filled by either party. The world situation has changed rapidly over the last few years so a change in requirements is understandable.
well the french based nuclear sub could never have been handled in australia, there was just no way of maintaining it. It needed to be refuelled etc, which effectively means after each patrol the boats would need to go to france to refuel etc... which pretty much means the subs would have been fucking useless. The french design was probably the best diesel design, however it was not suitable for the elevated security situation since the initial contract was signed.
@@checker297 you only need to refuel a nuclear sub like once, or in the case of more modern designs, never. refitting might be more difficult but I think france and austrailia could have worked out how to build the local infrastructure needed to maintain the new nukes. the problem is austrailia has basically committed to delaying new submarines until at least the mid 2030s. Australia needs to work right now to start building up a nuclear knowledge base
@@AsbestosMuffins Virginias and Astute don't need mid life refuelling. But the French sub does. Relying on the French to do that was never going to happen.
I had inside knowledge of some of the parts that were made in Australia in Fibreglass, or FRP for the last round of Submarines - location? Toowoomba. The so called manufacturers of these FRP parts were shit scared that they would fail under pressure. The parts were so big that they had to have specific routes to get to the assembly point in Adelaide, The parts made were crap and the manufacturer knew it. Such is the status or was the status of Sub building in Australia.
" ... inside knowledge ..." That's a great qualification. If you expect anyone serious, to take you seriously, you need to be more specific. Retired librarian, MI / US
@@veramae4098 Who gives a toss if you are a "Retired librarian, MI / US" ..... I was involved as I had specific input on the FRP and authored (as part of a team) and printed their Management plans/future applications. I am not mentioning names/company details as simple search would provide this information.
Although a troubled start to the collins class, they have become 1 of the most effective if not the most effective conventional submarine in any countries service!, the accomplishments during Ripac 2000, Tandem Thrust 2001, and a few more Sub exercises where they sunk a us l.a class ssn and a Essex class, then 2 l.a class subs in an ex where they were awarded a us citation and then were asked to run through the Hawaiian underwater sound range!
Took a lot of tweaks to get them up to good reliability and stealth capability. In the end, Australian brains did it. They may be old but they are younger than I am. Service life is approaching though as anything subjected to seawater generally rusts out.
@@geradkavanagh8240 yes the tweak to the sail and the front of the bow, aswell as you've stated we have gotten them to be a major platform to be able to project power aswell as defend our sea lanes.
They most certainly are now considered to be the best following the work on the Coles Report with the 2014 version deeming the boats to be 'beyond benchmark'.
I would highly recommend considering Navantia's S-80 class submarines. They are NOT nuke, state of the art technology, low thru life operation costs, they will easily connect with the LHD, AOR and Hobart class in terms of communications and information flow.
the first sub (collins) fabricated by kockums actually had the major section welds filled with bolts and welding rods and garbage. its nothing to do with bhp steel. kockums tried to scam them with a massively faulty product. i worked at asc.
@@jonathanbelmares8241 they didn't get away with it; it's detectable on x-ray. No it won't leak; the welds are like 6-7inches deep. The second sub- dechaineux - got a big gouge blasted into the inside of the hull from a sandblaster falling asleep with the hose propped up to pretend he was working. 2 hours full blast on one spot. Lol
Funny : Australian nuclear submarines will be excluded from New Zealand waters. New Zealand announced it will maintain the ban on nuclear-powered vessels in its waters, in place since 1985.
Given that this would mean they would lose access to 12 nautical miles around New Zealand, this would not be catastrophic. And in a war with NZ a participant; they would not uphold the ban
@Big Roger New Zealand has much better relations with China than Australia. In mid-April 2021, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta stated that New Zealand would not let the United States-led Five Eyes alliance dictate its bilateral relationship with China and that New Zealand was uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the intelligence grouping. Mahuta's statements came amidst rising disagreements between Wellington and Canberra on how to manage relations with Beijing.
Are you saying that changing to American/UK nuclear subs makes no sense because they could have gotten French nuclear subs? Your English is incomplete. In any event, no, France was not offering nuclear subs to Australia. Part of the American/UK agreement is that Australia will learn how to make and maintain the nuclear reactors, a closely guarded secret being given to Australia. France would not provide this to Australia.
@@motmontheinternet again France had nuclear subs designed, additional work was needed to redesign them for diesel power as Australia asked then Australia decided that they want nuclear subs but not French ones. Where French already spend a lot of money for conversion. Producing and training for nuclear subs was actualy easier for France. BTW France asks for part of payment of money spend on redesigning and accommodating facilities for diesel subs production.
5:19 “(The Australian navy) wanted it to be faster, deeper diving, stealthier, and run with fewer people.” It’s nice to want better things, but come on!
I mean, i was working as an intern at ng when the cancellation hit us. It felt really out of the blue. More than a des australian technicians working with us in France were also surprised by it. Personally that cancellation motivatited my n+1 to no renew the contract with me and a whole lot of alumnie. That cancellation litteraly impacted Big way on my life :)
I am Australian, and I'm honestly so embarrassed our government treated France and Naval Group like they did. Most Australians were ashamed of our government's behaviour.
Aussie here. Great to hear an external POV on the subs. The problems with RAN procurement would be much simpler if decisions were separate from industrial considerations and vice versa. I don’t know why we just didn’t buy decent subs instead of making the decision much more complex by building them locally. Trying to build subs locally is a bit like trying to build F-35s locally.
Sound theory but it doesn’t consider intellectual property including plans and specs to manufacture parts in Aus, it appears the French just wouldn’t hand over plans or intellectual rights, same as the O boats with the Scot’s. Buying them off the shelf just as you’d buy a car sounds simple, much, much more to consider, whole of life considerations, including industry ability and involvement appears crucial.
@@peterjames9610 Im not sure whether you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me. The strategic risk of buying off the rack (ha ha) subs from the US seems to me a sounder way of avoiding the world pain we were looking at by locally manufacturing bespoke subs. If supply and service from the US becomes a problem then I think Australia (and the rest of the World) will have a lot more to worry about than the loss of jobs in Adelaide.
Australia needs to build something. Subs are as good as anything. Once a process gets started it gets better. Australia's problem has been an anti-nuclear obsession. Logic has flown out of the window.
@@CrRodney1 Build cars, build white goods, build renewable restructure, build software, build world class health - but build six bespoke submarines? You’re having a laugh.
Australia has a low population and a small economy. It isn’t realistic to expect to be able to build all military equipment at any reasonable cost, quality, and timeframe. Opting to import subs instead of building locally would have been a good option. Focus limited resources on doing a few things well rather than trying to do everything on your own can be more efficient and help support more total jobs in the long run.
The problem is that the offer came with major issues that the Aukus deal doesn’t have. Primarily the US nuclear reactor will not require domestic nuclear power capability, its a legit plug and play nuclear engine, aside from maintenance there won’t be a need to manage nuclear fuel needs, meanwhile The French offer would require domestic nuclear power capability and require a yield level that is on the edge of weaponised yields
@@gcharny8022 This exactly. There was a concern that we might actually breach our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if we got the French subs.
@@gcharny8022 "The French offer would require [...] a yield level that is on the edge of weaponised yields". That's the opposite of the truth -- the US/UK reactors use HEU, near bomb grade. The French sub reactors work on power grade LEU, which is why they need mid-life refueling.
France submarine uses low-enriched uranium (LEU) at less than 20%, a level similar to that used in nuclear power plants for electricity production. LEU uranium must be renewed every 10 years, a delicate and dangerous operation, but it cannot be diverted for military purposes. American and British submarines use highly enriched uranium (HEU), more than 93%. Its lifespan is 30 years, but precisely because it is enriched, it can be used to make a bomb.
Australia should consider HALEU as fuel. Using HEU may not be feasible because of nonproliferation restrictions and local public opposition to obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. High Assay Low Enriched Uranium is enriched to around 15-19.75% and is more efficient than LEU while remaining under the 20% limit that allows civilian use and easier international transfer.
France should consider switching to HALEU for both civilian and military nuclear power use. This would increase time between refueling and increase power output available for a given reactor volume.
From Naval News: "We can be confident that the submarine will essentially be British or American. There are five main options to consider. The first two are the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy’s existing designs, the (1) Virginia Class and (2) Astute Class. Then there are the corresponding next generation attack submarine programs, the (3) SSN(X) and (4) SSN(R). And lastly, (5) a whole new design but leveraging technology from US and UK."
2:22 the 2 Chilean Oberons: (L-R) Hyatt and O' Brien. A Balao class, most likely Simpson (ex-USS Spot) with it's 1970 modified sail. In the top right corner cruiser Almirante Latorre (ex Göta Lejon). Picture from sometime before 1982, the year the last Balao class was decomssioned from the Chilean navy
Australian's are a tad bit difficult to work with.. they set a goal but remain very unsure how to reach it and what is needed.. A lack of experience/knowledge nor training about the goal they want to achieve with ever changing priorities.. That is the feeling I get when working on projects with them..
I got the feeling the French just said to yes to everything the we wanted so they would get the contract. Local participation in the build was a thing they said yes to and a big reason why they got the contract, but as soon as the contract was signed they started back tracking and saying Australia didn't have the industry to do it. Well, if you looked into that before saying you could do it you might've seen that. smh.
I would not doubt if that's the case, we have a massive brain drain problem that's been going on for 2 decades, some would argue for even longer. Despite having a prestigious education system that churns out fantastic students and some innovations in medicine and technology, none of them ever stay in shore.
@@Dylang01 "I got the feeling the French just said to yes to everything the we wanted so they would get the contract." well this is why there was cost overrun, every request added cost. Admittedly a better approach would be to go for the french nuclear sub from the start, lowest risk, proven design and known cost.
from my understanding SAAB/Kockums were not allowed to enter the bid for new subs, which begs several questions alingside this video about the procurement process.
@@inwedavid6919 With the minor problem that the US subs can't be refueled, If the US sells you their old ones they will have a 10-20 year life before they have to be scrapped.
Makcolm Turnbull was PM when the French were chosen. Morrison had no involvement in this disaster of a decision. Get your facts straight. AUKUS is a giant step in the security of Australia.
@@oweneather1435 Oh I have my facts straight... It will take more than 15000 days before we even get to the APPROX date we MIGHT get our first submarine. AUKUS will mean we have to have nuclear abilities on land and we can only afford 1 base for refit and repair. China/Enemy takes it out and then what? We're f***d! If we had conventional subs, we could use any base and buy 10 x more.. With 10-20 sub around Australia and near china, they wouldn't come close to us. But I'm soooo glad that Harvey Normans money is safe, hScummo's pedo protecting priest is doing ok and he support his supposed rapists in his cabinet.. Oh yer, how good is sport rorts.. Ya flog.
At 3:57 your graphic stated Australia only had one aircraft carrier, Melbourne. In fact Australia's first aircraft carrier was HMAS Sydney, which served from 1948 to 1955/1958 as a carrier, MELBOURNE took over this role. During this same period, the RAN also had HMAS Vengeance, from 1952 to 1955, which was on sold to Brazilian navy in the late 1950s. Today, the RAN has HMAS Canberra and Adelaide based on the Juan Carlos I design. Also the Lucas Heights facility is still operating, so Australia does have both a research nuclear reactor and universities that train people.
Lucas Heights nuclear facility is for producing Radioactive isotopes mainly for medical and research tools. We don't have any other Nuclear facility or Power Station. HMAS Melbourne was a potent Naval ship. Sinking the United States Destroyer Frank E Evans and the Australian Destroyer, HMAS Voyager by running over both of them. It then tried to sink a Sydney Harbour Ferry. The Australian Navy no longer have any ship that could be considered an Aircraft Carrier, capable of using fixed wing aircraft, after the retirement of HMAS Melbourne in 1982
@@grahamlucas2712 Yes, the carriers are known officially as landing helicopter dock ships of the Royal Australian Navy, but rotor aircraft land and take off from it and it has a ramp.
I love this channel I've watched a dozen of your videos in the last few days. Your analysis is detached and in line with scientific consensus which is a rare treat especially on TH-cam. UK here, nuclear physicist too as it happens. I understand the French are pissed but it's unreasonable to expect Australia to pick France over the United States and United Kingdom. The Queen is still Australia's Queen and holds Royal Prerogative. Technically speaking the Aussies signing with Germany or France instead of the UK would be treason!! The bit I don't understand is why the US and UK didn't offer their nuclear subs years ago while the French, Germans and Japanese were making their tenders Australia's best option appears obvious - import the specialists from the US and UK. Build the infrastructure and facilities required to manufacture US and UK subs in Australia. Pay whatever it takes to build to amazing top specs. Train the Aussies side-by-side with the US and UK engineers and submariners. Retain an Anglo-American core of top specialists in every relevant field in Australia. Agree with the US and UK that part of their fleets are always serviced and maintained in Australia ensuring that over the long-term the relevant technical and military personnel remain in Australia. It's surprising the US and UK are willing to share their nuclear tech but apparently that's not exactly what's happening. The US and UK are not going to do as described above - i.e. build Astute or Virginia-class submarines in Australia. They are going to make the Collins-class a bit bigger and slap nuclear propulsion on it. Dutto (Defence Minister Peter Dutton) suggested Australia would lease boats from the Royal Navy or US Navy until new boats were built but that appears to be an impossibility The UK and US are facing severe headwinds building and maintaining their own fleets. The 1st choice for the Aussies would probably be the RN Astute due to smaller crews, lower ticket shock and close UK ties. The Astute-class is also probably the best hunter-killer sub currently in production. The US option is of course larger with more missiles and iterative programs to include possible UUVs but more expensive. The big problem for Australia is building more Astute-class vessels is a primary goal for the UK itself. If it was possible to build more in the UK this would already be happening, but it isn't possible. By the time facilities in the UK were expanded and Australia caught up the Royal Navy would have another generation of vessel ready to replace current subs (Dreadnought-class ballistic and SSNR (Submersible Ship Nuclear Replacement)), while the US Navy would have also moved on via several iterative generations to Virginia-class as well as new classes of ship. Neither the US or UK keep subs in reserve, there are 0 spare today and even less available in future Australia can't buy Astutes or Virginias. Australia can't lease them either. Buying or leasing old subs is a bad idea anyway as refuelling is insanely expensive for nuclear subs and the hull/other systems degrade which each dive, including stealth capabilities. The only solution is expanding the entire production line for Astutes to Australia, a process which would take several years. The reactors are actually the first thing that need to be built before the hull of the ship is even cut. Building nuclear reactors for classified attack subs is not something that gets done overnight. Again the UK and US are experiencing chronic staff shortages in this area with concerns raised about their ability to complete their own sub programs (the US currently builds 2 Virginia class subs per year but wishes to expand capacity to 3). If the US can only push out 2 or 3 per year for its own forces, which are overstretched, and the UK is even more overstretched and inefficient in sub production, there's not much hope for Australia being a customer for existing fabricators. Australia would have to become part of the infrastructure and build its own subs in harmony with building and servicing other NATO subs
Even from just the technological standpoint, its extremely unreasonable unless the French had some sort of revolutionary addition for Australia if given the choice to choose France over USA/UK. UK has both technology and political ties alongside a proven track record of operating nuclear subs, the US is the proven largest operator and most advanced operator of nuclear-anything from ships to submarines to bombs. Especially when you consider the Americans were one of the earliest to adopt nuclear powered vehicles and have devoted significant recources over time to maintain and uprade their nuclear fleet.
GSTQ - you wrote "The bit I don't understand is why the US and UK didn't offer their nuclear subs years ago while the French, Germans and Japanese were making their tenders". Well, the fact is, Australia could not afford nuclear subs and never wanted them. Population wise, we are a small country, with a correspondingly small tax base to spend on military items. Our population has grown, but we still can't afford nuclear subs - they are just a Dutton thought bubble and won't actually happen. As far as ties are concerned, we are much closer to the USA than to Britain - have been since Britain dudded us in World War 2 and our prime minister had to go cap in hand and ask the USA for help in preventing Japanese invasion. We have defence treaties and arrangements with the USA. The British queen and now king has no relevance whatsoever to what equipment we buy.
The Virginia class programme in the US reportedly uses some 3,000 sub-contractors. If a nuclear sub based on these boats was to be built in Australia, supplies from most of these companies would presumably still be needed. As you note, in 2009 it was deemed impossible to build such a sub in Australia. It probably still is - or at least couldn't be done without expending a vast portion of our national wealth. Despite the troubled history of the Collins class, as you state they are now extremely good & effective boats. For a particular role - that is, defending Australia. The notion of going nuclear hinges on a strategic role whereby Australian subs join Uncle Sam in his global deterrent strategy. It's pretty obvious who the assumed adversary is. Can Australia ensure its own national security without going down this path? A lot of the published material about nuclear subs is little more than sales promotion. Maybe Australia would be better off maintaining & upgrading our existing fleet (perhaps adopting air-independent propulsion) and deploying its submarines closer to its shores.
TRHis is a really good point that the post downplayed. Ithe decision to can the French subs was at least as much about a (really, really stupid IMO) change in geopolitical stance as much as anything else. It is hard not to feel that this change in politics was brought about by the desire to pick fights with a scary yellow foreigner to align with a big white friend, for domestic political advantage.
I remember well when Tony Abbott came here and basicly pissed on Sweden's submarine capabilities (Kockums) .. glad we are still building our own , and not sharing , on time and so far on budget , and still 'undetectable'. To quote Dashed from this very comment section "Australian's are a tad bit difficult to work with.."
Australia has had two nuclear research reactors. The second, which is currently operational, replaced the first. I take your point, and these reactors are not meant for power generation, on land or otherwise. But still, they are nuclear reactors.
@@somethinglikethat2176 I don't dispute that it can/does generate a limited amount of power - but its purpose and usage is medical research and production of radioisotopes, not power generation. I'm mean, it doesn't output to the electricity grid - does it? You can get from one end of a paddock to the other on a ride-on mower, but you wouldn't call it a mode of transportation...
Hey, I really like your videos. I have a suggestion: can you make one on the photography industry of Japan and how they came to dominate the market so much as of now.
Edited for spelling I've been following the debacle of the Australian submarine force for over 30 years. It has lurched from farce to shame and then back again. For a country that can - and does - do so many things right, the repeated missteps here are baffling at best, scandalous at worst. The present direction is hopefully the beginning of a new chapter, but I'm frigtened it's still in the same book - Australian sub's just seem perpetually jinxed.
Shouldn't be a problem now, with getting the U.S. Virginia Class that has a proven track record. Apparently, to make sure that you get it within the next 7 years, the press said they'll be willing to transfer one or two from those currently in use.
Wrong. The Lucas Heights facility is NOT a power station. It is for producing isotopes for research and mainly for medical diagnostic uses, analysis of sample materials, and production of special high purity alloys. The isotopes are produced by irradiation and chemical isolation. Its' heat output is miniscule compared to power stations.
And what is Australia going to do with the nuclear waste once these nuclear subs are decommissioned? Australia does its rare earth metal refinery work in Malaysia and won't even take back the waste. Does Australia also intend to dump that waste in Malaysia too?
The submarines of U.S and GB produce al lot of nuclear waste, including the submarines itself at the end of their service-time. And they has no solution for the final safe storage of it. Now comes you Aussies and say like the comments here: „No problem we have a big desert“. Can you hear the applause from London and Washington: „Oh, how nice. We make you a special price and you take our waste too?“ Better watch out before someone is luring you into something you may regret. You has to transport this stuff through your country and guard it for the next million years. When this is all so easy, why does the americans do not use their on deserts? Perhaps you can name your country soon: „down under garbage“!
Theres 10 or 20 years (depending on your perspective) between Tange and the DOD and the end of the cold war. You can't really treat these events as more or less one period. The whole point of the project being local was that we could refit them and service them oursleves whcih kept money and jobs local but more importantly made sure that we were quite independent for refit and repairs and we didn't need to send our boats around the wporld for refit - which might be challenging and time consuming in time of conflict. Additionally building local helped re-open our ship building industry locally, whihc meant our future surface cessels and the ventual follow on class for Collins could be built local and we'd have the same benefit for those. Yes it was expensive but in the long run it is cheaper as we can build our own warships now and refit/upgrade them locally. It gives the RAN and the nation a significant uplinft in capability. It was an expensive project but in a lot of ways it was a learning project - we learnt how to build the most difficult type of ship in the world (other than nuclear propelled subs - we'll be doing that next :-) ). It also makes us much more valuable as partners/allies. We now have the local skills to re-fit other nations vessels. So a US or UK sub or surface vessel that is damaged in the region can be reparied/refit here instead of transitting around half of the earth. The Collins class was a success in the end, and it was a way bigger success than most people give it credit for. The Collins class also turned out to be a very capable platform - possibly one of the most capable conventional subs in the world -the same combat systeems and weapomns as the USN and probably the logest endurance conventional boats extant. TBH our needs have not changed - but our government has finally accepted that conventional subs are not really the best fit for a country which operates its subs in a different hemisphere. People talk about the cost over-runs, but it doesn't matter where or who we buy vessels from, there will be cost overuns. Every defense project has cost overruns. At least when we build local a good chunk of that money stays local, both budgetted and over spend. The political promise is not why we need to buikld local - we need to build local so that we can maintain our own vessels and by extension our sovereignty. That is another factor that many people do not understand about many of our defense projects is that Australia frequently pays to have access/license the IP in our defense projects, e/g/ we get the code and the engineering data. Many countries who buy from third parties don't license the tech which means their kit is cheaper BUT they can not repair, modify their kit without the approval of the country they bought it from - because they don't have the code/data to make the changes. With regards to personel and technology required for nukes - RAN, RAAF and to a lesser extend Aussie Army personel spend years in the US already learning how to maintain US supplied systems. I know a number of RAN ratings ("enlisted" men) who lived in the US for 18-14 months learning how to look after US supplied radars, missile, combat systems etc, so training and bringing the personel capability up to speed is not as hard to get over as people think. We'll just do what we normally do when we need expertise we can't train locally - we'll send people to the US or UK. Quite possibly we'll have US officers/SNCOs on exchange if required. Not many people understand the depth of the US/UK/Australian relationship in this regards. US, UK and Australian officers are fairly routinly posted into each other's forces chains of command. The depth of those relationships is very deep - as demonstrated by the fact the US has already signalled it is willing to share it's nuclear tech, which it has only done once before. For years Australian general has been posted as a deputy commander of the US Army Pacific. Pretty sure we have RAAF and RAN officers in similar roles at similar levels. In effect Australian officers are embedded in US command structures on a semi permanent basis, at least in the Indo Pac. At the lower levels we have people as low as corporals on year or multi year exchanges with UK and US forces and those exchange troops do deplopy and command elements iof the host nations in operatoions, should operations occur.
Looks like you're going to be get what you mentioned, about the U.S. sharing its nuclear tech. For the first time since sharing it with the UK the U.S. is going to be selling Virginia Class nuclear subs to Australia.
Australia should procure the nuclear boats OS as this will save time and money, but there should be a lot less nuclear boats supplemented by Collins 471-2 BATCH 2. We can have 3 Collins boats for every AUKUS boat on the same money. Collins can take the same sensors and weapons, but it needs more of them and more endurance. Research entered into to examine the AIP (air independent propulsion) meant the hulls would be stretched, which added volume and displacement. This means that a larger version of Collins is already envisaged which would make it able to carry more weapons, and a larger new tech battery. The new tech battery would be nickel-zink, and could extend endurance by 2.7x. This enables Collins to hold the same sortie lengths (90 days) as nuclear boats, but on a standard Collins crew. Collins 471-2 BATCH 2 are the quickest, cheapest, most accessible answer to previous government blunders, giving us a highly capable platform which is quieter than the nuclear boats.
Just quietly pump out 1 every couple of years. Add upgrades during construction to avoid major refits and retire older ones. I'm partly in agreement here but having some nuclear powered ones( not nuclear armed) would be advantageous.
@@geradkavanagh8240 I see that too, but we dont need 6, 8, or 10 nuclear powered boats. The core of our defence (as opposed to unrestricted global presence) is in the littoral waters to our north west around the top and to our east. These are better conditions for a Collins sized boat than a Virginia. I think 4 nuclear boats would be plenty and am appellant to those boats built overseas for speed and cost reasons. Assuming they cost 5 bill +, thats 12 Collins boats in the same budget. Assuming the nuclear boats are much more makes the formula even more inviting. Ive been hearing closer to 10 bill each
One thing you didn’t mention that I read is that Australia would now need to satisfy a lot of IAEA requirements/oversight as well in order to become nuclear capable and the supporting infrastructure
@@admiralprestoncole Therefore the subs would be useless without the French having to service the subs. Therefore a loss of autonomy for Australia and being held hostage to France.
@@Dylang01 You're getting the U.S. Virginia Class with a sealed reactor, according to the announcement. So no inspections of the reactor will be able to be done, since it's sealed.
What if the US sold the 4 Virginia class Block 1 subs to Australia? The Australian Navy would get 4 modern subs right away and the USN could put the money towards Block 5 subs.
I've read that that is being considered. Australia will buy the current proven design of either the UK or the USA. Which depends on price. The US option is a bit larger and a bit more expensive.
Well, you are getting your wish. It looks like you'll be getting new-built Virginias, with possibly 1 or 2 of them that are currently in use. The 1st ones are supposed to be arriving before 2030.
" Protectionist policies had eroded Australia's industrial manufacturing capacities...."! Many would argue the reverse in fact occurred. Removing the job protecting "Protectionist policies" transferred the jobs and skills development arising from them to other countries workers is the alternative viewpoint. one that I agree with. Are there any others out there who would join me in also challenge the assertion in this compelling documentary?
Agreed. We seemed to have lost the knack for punching well above our weight. Deregulation really kicked that along; undermining trade unions, designing policy that only focussed on big business, eroding the funding for organisations such as the CSIRO... On and on. As an addendum, why would ANY sovereign nation trust another nation to build major defence technology for them? Allies today, sure, but what about tomorrow?
Dude… How do you always pick such interesting topics? Also - you used the word ‘kerfuffle’ - a sorely underused word considering it describes just about any project of bureaucracy… nice work 👍🏼
@@nickl5658 Not necessarily the case with the French subs, which unlike the US/UK ones are nuclear electric rather than shaft driven off the turbine. It is possible to mostly shut the reactor down and run them on batteries.
Seriously, you ought to do a t-shirt of the adorable Mule Deer(?) illustration at 00:01. Just the deer illustration on the shirt front - and how about *ASIANOMETRY* in different Asian languages on the back? Regards, Kev
We can’t even manufacture car efficiently, so best of luck manufacturing nuclear subs. It should not even be up for discussion. We could manufacture patrol boats, but Australia’s expertise is in mining and agriculture.
This topic is WAY more complex than you describe & there are many critical considerations that are completely missed from this treatment. But decent effort nonetheless.
Who even wants to fight in Australia? It is about their ambition to project power as a member of the Aukus. By the time these subs are deployed the world geopolitical situation and local politics could be vastly different. May end up being a complete waste of money.
We've been attacked by Japan before, why would Japan ever want to attack us? ....but there is a rather large Sino-Fascist nation to the north (closer than Japan), but I've got a good feeling about those guys. It's not like a ethno-nationalistic, authoritarian, one-party dictatorship would do anything war-like....
I reckon it would be Better if both Osborne north/south is bae systems. Hunters-south + future ssnr(astute successor)north. It makes sense to have the whole workforce under one banner, they can easily work between both shipyards. Whilst redeveloping/expanding north shipyard over the next 4-5 years and training workers etc, turn current asc south/sa and west/wa-and surrounding area into a thyssenkrupp shipyard over the next 2 years. Whilst the Germans build us a few type 212cd-e, we also simultaneously build the same at asc, ending up with 8 212cde by 2040. The Ssnr built in Osborne to begin production in late 2030s or early 2040s. An astute or Virginia build, already a 25+ year old design built here would see only have 1 boat before 2040. I don’t see us getting overseas built subs as the production lines are flat chat and already behind scedule. even with U.S. shipyard expansion it is not possible and barrow facility cannot expand either.
Apparently, you are getting Virginias. Starting before 2030. Apparently, even if it means transferring a currently operating one or two, to get it there on time.
One of the ironies is that the French Diesel Design was an adaption of an existing Nuclear Design. If we bloody well wanted a Nuke Sub. Should have said so in the first place... (But in reality, if you want something complex built to a high standard, and German and Japanese options are on the table. Well, I'd rather drive a German or Japanese car rather than a French one...)
@@nictamer Given on average you fly on an airbus 50% of the time and (unlike the Boeing 373-MAX) they didn't cheap out on their design. I'm not sure what your argument is? As for Fukushima. the story isn't that there was damage to the nuclear plant. It's that (in real terms) the direct damage was so minor. Look at photos from that quake and tsunami of the surrounding areas. They're flattened. The Nuke plant was largely unaffected. Save for the fact that the ensuing flood knocked out power and put the backup generators under water. Thus no cooling pumps = partial fuel melt. So again. not sure what your argument is.
The nuclear reactors of Fukushima were designed by General Electric (GE). A few hours without active cooling and they go boom. Now try to figure out who will build the reactors for Australia’s new submarines. 🤯🇺🇸
@@jordanallen1862 the Japanese just couldn't be bothered to build a wall high enough, but sure, they're great at complex projects. Airbus is headquartered in Toulouse and seems quite adept ar complex projects. Not that hard to understand.
Wrong! It was legal, the type of reactors the French use cannot be maintained in Australia because of local and international laws that Australia signed, the American ones are sealed and last the life of the boat bypassing that problem.
Sometimes it makes more sense to import something. Australia needs these subs now. So I would suggest that the USA build them... perhaps even give us one now... and we can build a facility to service it but send it back to USA for nuclear refit at end of life.
Looks like you're getting the Virginia Class nuclear sub. It's got a self-contained, sealed reactor that is made to last the life of the boat. Supposedly, you're getting at least 1 by 2030. Even if it means taking one from the U.S. active service to get it.
@@chb2551 Yes I think the deal makes sense... USA sort us out this decade... UK build the next gen model. UK need the work but the US to help us with a fleet in the meantime. So it is a good solution. As for the cost.. I think we can afford it. I am not sure we can afford not to have it.
Obviously Australia needs a Submarine Service and to do that they need submarines. It really comes down to making a choice as to what Australia's future plans for Defense are. If Australia chooses power projection away from its own coasts then their best option is going to nuclear powered vessels. If instead Australia choses regional defense then diesel-electric is their best option. Keep in mind just how large Australia is and how much coast they have. If the status quo regarding China remains then maybe regional defense is a reasonable choice, but if that status quo changes...well, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.
the best defense is offense! Why should Australia ever give a damn about its coast line when all australian soilder are on the front line of the enemy soil?
Submarines spend their entire operational lives bathed in corrosive sea water. One of the lessons learnt operating the O-Boats was the need to be able to conduct deep level maintenance locally as it's a strategic problem and operational impracticality to have your submarines undergo maintenance on the other side of the world. So the premium for a local industry to support submarines may be a small price to pay.
Gaining access to US reactors using highly enriched uranium is a huge, almost unbelievable, achievement, as that's weapons grade fuel. While the current UK designed attack boats are extremely good, our best bet would be to simply order the latest US boats, perhaps even opening up an extra yard to hasten construction in the US, meanwhile leasing some older US boats for jointly crewed training and defence patrols. One complicating factor going forward though, is the rapidly changing technology and increased vulnerability of manned subs. Many countries are looking at adding autonomous subs, with no need for all the complicated and expensive life support systems, indeed fire risk can be minimised by having a (variable pressurised?) nitrogen atmosphere with no oxygen at all.
Something is missing from this story. 13:50 yes tensions have risen. But merchant shipping across tension points predates 2016, this cannot be claimed as a "reason" Also, submarines (nuclear or diesel) are never employed to protect merchant ships or sea lanes.
Aussie here - Good content. The whole anti-nuclear thing was so stupid from the beginning just to appease leftist idiots. We continually fuck up large procurement projects because we just don't have the local resourcing, industry or subject matter expertise. We then let ex-generals get sweet cushy jobs to advocate for less than stellar capability equipment. I'm not going to mention even getting people to run the boats - our navy is hemorrhaging personnel. Personally, I don't mind cancelling the contract with France. If a shooting war occurs with China, I am certain UK or US would provide spare parts. France may not want to put itself in the line of fire (as demonstrated by its tepid response to Ukraine). UK and US have a shared history and culture in many ways.
The response in Ukraine was not tepid, France was among the first to announce sanctions, only lagging the likes of Poland and Lithuania. We just didn't publicize the specifics of weapons deliveries for a number of reasons, particularly the ongoing election campaign.
You could make the argument that the US, UK and Australia are stupid for continually trying to find ways to bait Chinese aggression and fear monger on how they’re such a big threat to national security. I’m sure the Chinese are shivering in their boots hearing about how Australia will get 8 new subs in 20 years.
@@sanitygone-l9y You could make the argument that democracies should lie down and accept authoritarian regimes can take whatever they want as long as they have the strength - and end up like Ukraine. China and Russia are learning that democracies fight harder and stronger unlike their own people. China only understands strength and weakness and if Australia's national Defence is based on 'hope', it's doomed. 8 submarines is more than enough to make a PLAN vessel think twice.
@@Ludendorf01 bro it’s 8 subs in 20 years, they have 20 years to make a move if they wanted to, 8 new submarines isn’t going to do anything if China truly wanted something.
@@Ludendorf01 you should watch vladimir pozners video on Putin. Western ‘democracies’ should stop using their ‘freedom’ to bully and impose their ideals on other nations all the while giving rise to authoritarian regimes.
I wish there was a video/series just as high quality as this, on the evolution of the Australian music industry. From the beginning till now, discuss, labels, bands and movements etc.
I need to point out that the French submarine project was an absolute clusterfuck from day one and was HEAVILY delayed and over-budget. They wouldn’t have had any built until after the Collins retired anyway and they were gonna cost as much or more then a nuclear powered submarine with significantly less performance. They didn’t even have the latest tech like Fuel Cells which would’ve made them obsolete before their hulls were laid down. The french company was absolutely raping the Australian taxpayers for every penny they could and they deserve what happened to them. If they’d executed properly the first Attack Class subs would already be under construction. It was a complete shit-show that was mishandled from the start by Australia’s politicians and France’s defense industry. The Australian people are much better off dropping that turd and getting a 21st century Submarine.
This video completely glosses over the fact that australia cannot defend against a land based army. It is primarily reliant on air/naval denial around the huge australian continent (and abroad so other hostile countries cannot set up shop there for an attack) The french subs failed to deliver anything substantial in a reasonable manner and instead of building the ships in australia as originally intended, it was to 90% moved to foreign locations, which ultimately risked this strategy as if maintaining the subs which kept your shipping lanes open required a foreign power to be on your side, which was located halfway across the world, it would ultimately mean the submarines were effectively useless. It was rightfully canned and france should have seen this coming, if it ever was serious about keeping this deal alive it should have actually listened to the genuine concerns australia had raised over the past 15 years. The US just took advantage of the fact that australia is an unique location the pacific as it can stage large armies for amphibious invasions etc... and just gave australia a deal it could not decline. It wasnt like there was poor US/AU relations either and it further secured US support in a pacific war where potentially the US could just retreat to its own shell. I agree it will take time to fill the gaps, however there is no reason that the US/UK will not fill that capability immediately (as it will allow AU naval crew to gain experience in a similar boat). Then you have the AUKUS agreement at a whole which was before this so exclusive that only the US/UK had such a pact, not even any other five eyes alliance member had access to it, even though australia effectively makes up a significant part of that with its ability to monitor satellites without being at risk of interception by military forces outside australian domestic territory. Macron has shown that he wanted to become the next world leader at the head of a powerful EU, but with the situation in ukraine, the EU has shown to the world the only powers that are actually relevant at the moment in the west are the US and UK as they are not hamstrung by foreign powers.
Australia’s forward defence has to be air and naval but it can also defend against a ‘land based army’, whatever that means. Mostly because any invader has to get a large number of troops there and mount an amphibious invasion, which is the hard part. There’s no point just landing anywhere. Australia’s assets and facilities are concentrated in and around its few large port cities, which are all highly defensible, and defended. The smaller forward ones, Darwin and Townsville, are also major regular army bases.
On the contrary with its Land 400 program the Australian Defense Forces (ADF) become a formidable army. The problem is how to get the fighting vehicles on the battlefield, if the enemy doesn’t have the courtesy to come to Australia? They won’t ship by u-boat, but the transports will need submarine protection. Too bad nuclearization reduces the number and availability of boats.
@@jansix4287 australia simply does not have the manpower. With a population of ~25m people au has no way of sustaining military losses. Although its army is exceptional quality, it just simply does not have the numbers to sustain any real losses in a large scale conventional war. Our forces are more suitable for tactical operations, rather than strategic ones.
@@checker297 - Not really. If needed Australia could easily field and sustain 25 divisions (1 per million people at 20k each). In fact we fielded almost double that ratio in WW2. The problem for a populous enemy isn’t the size of the Australian army, it is getting enough troops here.
Some Australians distrusted the Japanese and went so far as to suggest that the Japanese would build-in some sort of doomsday device to destruct the subs they built for Australia if ever we were at war with them. Imagine all the exploding Japanese cars and televisions etc!!
Since then, Australia has passed a law exempting foreign military personnel and their contractors from prosecution from local laws. 1. Environmental damage 2. Will US personnel treat Australian locals any better than they treat Korean and Japanese people where they have bases? This legislation suggests Australia is expecting alot of rapes and environmental damage along with whatever other crimes US military wish to commit.
Building a modern warship is very complex and requires an industrial base that is not “on and off”. Governments rarely understand this sexless idea. A common design would help but the issue is still the fitters who make it work and keeping them generation after generation
It's really important to understand that the ongoing maintenance and repair cost have proven to be far more expensive for submarines and ships purchased for overseas. Building them here is far cheaper in the long run. Secondly having to sail them to an overseas port for major repair during a conflict is unthinkingly stupid.
This has been an Australian joke for 15 years now. My stepson at the time was earmarked by Melbourne university to be part of the engine design. That’s 18 years ago.
The only way to acquire independant capability in any thing is to do it yourself rather than but some thing from some one else, it might cost more in the short term but saves heaps in the long term and builds up technological know how and provided further research that other wise would not occur. As to the public reaction , in 2022 , because of the politial issues in South East Asia the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Australia is not only smiled on by the public but MOST of the public would like them to also have nukes on board under direct Australian control, finally on these issues if a country with the inability of Pakistan has nuclear capacity then it is certain that Australia can if it wants to..and it SHOULD!
No it’s not!!! The skippies have bought 6 Astute clad subs from the UK. First one has already been tested an soon to be commissioned if not done at time of writing!!!! Thanks for sharing guys Paul 12.27 gmt Uk cheers
All I want to say is that Australian politicians have to be among the world´s most incompetent leaders on earth! How this Submarine debacle has been handled is the greatest source of disbelief and astonished laughter ever. After all these years, the ending is hilarious for all except the Frensh.
People in the US complain about defense budget over runs, while seem bad. But in comparison to other countries, its not too bad. the Soviets/Russia seem to be able to develop systems on a tight budget, but in actual combat use, has some less than desirable characteristics
You are really versatile in your research. Very impressed that you summed up the ongoing saga with our submarine program so well.
The irony is that the diesel-electric submarines ordered from France were derived from the Suffren class which had been designed from the outset to be nuclear powered.
The problem was that anything nuclear was a no go to Australia.
But Going from a nuke sub to a conventional sub is basically re-designing the whole sub.
And a fact of life is that no project in France goes fast. So with no convential variant emerging in time...Australia jumped ship.
@@dwwolf4636 Selling nuclear powered subs to Australia was not a problem for France. On the other hand, the USA had severely criticised France for its participation in the Brazilian nuclear submarine programme. Washington had accused Paris of laxity in nuclear proliferation while the French are just manufacturing the hull and the non nuclear equipments. No wonder that even a man as subservient to the US as Macron considered himself betrayed.
@@monnezzapromizoulin5169 Needs do change over time, I am not defending how our government handled the switch but I do think long term it is more in line with what we need. The Australian public is generally pretty conflicted on the France fiasco due to slipping time lines, slashing of promises to local contract workers and general budget blow out but I do see why the french are pissed.
Better minds than I needed to be the fucking adults at the table and at least sent a memo. Maybe france could have just sold us nuclear subs? Who knows at this point.
@@monnezzapromizoulin5169 the French kept moving the goal posts. They quoted one price, then it ballooned to almost twice as much. With lifetime sustainment costs included, the cost would have been $130 BILLION!!! They also promised a certain amount of local build in Australia only to later reneg on it. There was huge resentment at how snobby and lazy the French were as well. Part of the reason for winning was underhanded lobbying - the French hired an ex-ASC higher up/ex- govt official to lobby. No one should’ve been surprised at the French being given the boot
@@khaldrago911 The contract with Naval Group started to be discussed in 2016 and was finally signed in 2019, but even after this signing its terms and the specifications of the submarines never stopped being discussed by Cambera. Naval Group has been working hard to save the deal, even adapting its submarines with American weapons. This explains the significant increase in the programme's costs. Let me make a bet: when Australia finally gets its subs (if it ever does) they will be the most expensive subs in the world.
Sub Brief has a good expanded primer as well, on the whole ordeal to replace them. Like, alllllll the marbles. Worth the watch.
I second this. Great perspective from a sailor. I recall Sub Brief did touch on the training and readiness required to run nuclear subs, as well as the recent scare on a US nuclear powered sub experiencing damage in South China Sea and the dangerous, shifting geography of the oceans in this region. Another incident worth mentioning is the Indonesian Navy's tragic loss of a sub and all souls on board during a training mission. I'm not confident Australia's navy would have the same level of readiness with this new hardware given how dangerous the region's oceans are to subs.
@Ozzie climate refo It’s a common problem among western nations, who have convinced themselves that the days of war with peers are over. It’s not like they actually intend to use the purchases they make in a hot war.
Defence spending is no longer about defence and more about shovelling graft into the pockets of the MI complex. The Oz situation really illuminated that.
Linky: th-cam.com/video/g2vnciriE_Q/w-d-xo.html
ah yes i came looking for this comment. You should add thel ink
@@sh7de553 "how dangerous the region's oceans are to subs." Interesting I didn't some ocean are more risky/dangerous to sub?
maintenance had been a huge issues with UK built subs, lack of part, lack of Intellectual property to build them locally, unavailability of UK docks
That is why they are to built at BAe Australia Shipyard is it not. The UK immediately authorised £250 Million to be spent on a replacement for the Astute Class even though they are not yet all built. My understanding was that a new facility was to be produced and that Australians will be working with BAe UK, Barrow and Rolls Royce in the UK on the last Astute Class to gain work experience before construction of the RAN Boats. That was the reason for the long lead time!
@@trevorhart545 yeah, Australia and the UK should look at the next build together. There is some talk of Australia leasing some LA class from the US in the meantime. Maybe (if the timing and requirements worked out) a joint Aus/US/UK project would be good. Japan and India could also be interested but the more the more difficult the project could become.
Docks unavailable, in barrow now and they are empty
Do you mean in aus
@@somethinglikethat2176 We wont lease the LA class. The "talk" is from journalists and politicans who don't know what they are talking about.
It will take 10-15 years to be ready to receive a nuclear boat if they were starting right now. As it is it's likely another 5-10 years before we actually start actually training staff and building facilities which would push things back to a 15 - 20 timeframe and the US would have to alter several laws around their submarines to make it legal to transfer it into RAN.
Aus and the UK will most certainly share a boat at some point, uniform ships across NATO country's to keep costs down has been pushed by the UK for decades now. A shared Nuclear boat would go along way for the UK to showcase it's strengths.
unavailability of UK docks is due to the fact that the only shipyard making subs in the UK is Barrow, and it is at full capacity for the next 30 years at least.
Dude, I've been reading about this some recently...and then one of my favorite TH-cam channels drops a video on it! Absolutely *love* all the different topics you've been exploring lately. Keep it up!
Into ships Drachinifel The Scrap Iron Flotilla - Australian Destroyers in the Mediterranean th-cam.com/video/04jjgbfMb1k/w-d-xo.html
While interesting, you appear to be wrong regarding the cancellation of the next gen submarine. It is my understanding that the contract had phase reviews built in, at which time either party could decide not to proceed it was in light of one of these phase reviews that Australia decided not to continue, bear in mind each phase was paid for.. However the way it, at least publicly was telegraphed, could have been more diplomatic.
Correct
The decision itself cannot be questioned - it was clearly the right thing to do. But PR failures and a less-than-honest appearance made it look terrible.
5 very firm, clear warnings isn't diplomatic enough, they were arrogant and thought they could bully us into staying. We made it incredibly clear they were the issue
Macron wasn’t taking calls from Scomo and they had been warned several times but they kept falling further behind and the price kept going up.
@@Semajsenrab72 From my reading the French were failing to deliver on promises -cost was rising and less was to be built in Australia. I strongly suspect the French always knew they could not meet the contract at the price and were dishonest.
with regard to the french contract - while the french would understandably never be happy about its cancellation there is a polite and a not-so-polite way to go about it. scummo appears to have used dutto as his speechwriter on this occasion.
ScoMo has been an international diplomatic disaster. He has destroyed 30 years of relation building efforts to other countries.
Tbf the french gonna be ultra-pissed anyway; they seem to get very emotional about business. Their Naval Group is one of the most corrupt, rotten military conglomerates in the west, yet they act like someone besmurched their honour...
Same time theyre happy selling weapons to countries comitting genocides. Heck, some of the russian tanks striking Ukraine right now use french optical systems!
French were pissed off mostly because they shared their deepest design secrets/specification in the understanding they would build a strong partnership in the pacific with Australia(which is important for France). Now, these secret files have for sure been given to the US, for nothing).
@@damien2198 yeah, gotta love the FIVE EYES ONLY /s
I dont agree with you sir, i dont know what the media has been like down under, but here in the UK this sub deal with france and then us and usa has been massive news. And whilst the contract was abruptly cancelled, it was at that point in serious troubble, the contracts were YEARS behind schedule, with nothing yet delivered and 2 should have been, they were going 125% over budget, had serious design difficlties modifing parts of the subs for state of the art equipment, and we wont mention they were FRENCH, who see a dinner table and see an opertunity to have a wine and lunch, the very same people who when the goverment suggested a 70mph speed limmit, went out and ripped 100% of cameras on the motorways nationwide (no i aint kidding they destroyed every motorway camera there was) Even if the contract had continued the french had made it clear all in all the delays would amount to 5 years and no new subs before 2024.
The contract with the french as you might imagine had more holes in it than a british teabag.
All in all this is a good deal for AUS, and in a sence will make them more flexible in joint operations, afterall the french command and control systems are 100% incompatible with western systems
Very well done. I’m an Aussie with friends that worked within ASC on the Collins Class. Did you a good job with this video 👍
Mike, hello from the US. Your last name is the same as that of my Grandfather, Leonard J. Wasowski. I wonder if we are related. Best regards!
Since you worked on the Collins class, do you know how many there are? At first, it sounded like 6 were made in Australia and just maybe, a couple more were made in Britain.
But at 16:21 he says..."the Australian navy has had trouble staffing the FIFTY EIGHT large Collins submarines"
That does not sound right at all, as that would mean Australia has the world's third largest submarine fleet. Can you clarify?
@@gregparrott it was a friend that worked there, not me n
You'll love the Electric Boat Nuclear Subs. They're the BEST. A little pricey but you'll get your money's worth. Long range, silent, long life, roomy, high tech, able to carry plenty of missiles and torpedoes, special forces, top quality radars/sonars, and many more. Just make sure you train all your sailors, mechanics, technicians, captains, oh Nuclear technicians/mechanics. You all should send some young builders over here in Groton where their built to train to build them and all just mentioned. Have a few older experienced submarine builders too so they can train Australians builders. Due to the military threats from China and Russia You're going to need to keep up with this continously so you may need your crews very well trained and willing to work 3 shifts teams. China is really ramping up their military might. And their encroaching into every strategic locations. Military bases. So get your leaders, politicians, universities, and population ready before its too late. Also build your economy. You'll need your population working to provide your country wealth, health, and technologies. Move FOREWARD. Not Backward or Stagnation.
Get away from DIESELS. It's too polluting and NOISY as hell.
Something worth mentioning is that the submarines the Japanese were offering would have had their hull lengthened in order to extend their operational range. I knew this whole deal was going to ultimately go no where when they rejected the Japanese offer for the French one. The Japanese offer was simply better.
The Japanese didn't have the industrial capacity to deliver the submarines within the timeframe the Australians set. Because the island is so demilitarized, Japan's military industry could only deliver one submarine every two years under ideal circumstances. So these submarines wouldn't make it to the Australian Navy within the timeframe necessary.
Japan didn't get the contract because they refused to build the subs in Australia.
@@Vivaporius yeah well look where they are now, it’s 2022, there’s no new sub to talk about and the collins have to be refitted anyways.
@@Vivaporius And the French project, 8 years old and they would not have started building until 2028.....terrible. Typical french incompetance
@@dennistani1986 That's because the australian kept changing the specs. Our weapon industry is extremly competent, the main issue is that we are more used to making nuclear powered submarine.
4:00 The RAN operated two Majestic class carriers and one Colossus class carrier.
Sydney, Melbourne and Vengeance.
Sydney was a Terrible ship and Melbourne was a Majestic one.
The Vengeance was only on loan from 1952-55 while Melbourne was being completed, which took about 8 years because they kept adding new Technology including a new Island, Angled flight deck, Steam Catapults and a Mirror landing system, the cost skyrocketed and the increase in size and cost of new Aircraft meant that Sydney's conversion was cancelled and she was relegated to Troop Tpt. In a more perfect world we could have rebuilt Sydney and kept Vengeance as a troop Tpt, Vengeance was never re-commissioned into the RN and was rebuilt and sold to Brazil
@@Harldin
Good info thanks
For those not aware Sydney was originally to be named HMS Terrible and Melbourne HMS Majestic, thus the pun. They and 4 sisters where sill under construction when WW2 ended. and no longer wanted by the RN were sold off to Australia, Canada and Netherlands.
Isn't it mind boggling that ASC were able to brush off the silent operation requirement--akin to the customary requirement for bombers to fly high or for fighters to be fast--up to the point when a whole bloody submarine was completed, and then literally 'heard' from all the way up in the air by an aircraft?
"Na she'll be alright mate, look at the size of the fakken SONAR!"
our defence force is super bright down under. they love to waste money
Crazy indeed..
One former Defence Minister said of the government owned ASC "that he won't trust them to build a canoe".
The Collins Class submarines actually beat the low acoustic contract requirements for speeds that are used to infiltrate harbours. In fact they are the quietest in the world. The Collins class submarines are noisy at cruising speed, not because of their diesel engines but due to the shape of the hull. The Collins class submarines are based on a Swedish sub which don't normally travel at speed and so that is how the Collins class became noisy at cruising speeds.
this made my day
Amazing video dude! You Americans are so passionate about military, it's nice to see you guys paying attention to our situation. (I find very few Aussies want to really talk about it in detail). I wish we doubled our capacity so that we could really help out our allies moreso than we do now.
Seems like the Ukraine war has made many western countries including the US realize that they've been lacking and relying on the US too much. (Was reading comments from some soldiers from Germany and UK and they said their logistics need to improve. Also weapon procurement in Germany is a beaucratic hell hole.)
We can't even keep up with orders. (Especially Lockheed. Where the hell does all the money go? Expand your fucking manufacturing base).
As an American citizen I want our allies to have their own defense industry and be self reliant. Globalization is both a blessing and a curse in this regards. We are learning Russian weapons use a lot of western components. I think all countries can take a page from Isreal, Sweden, and South Korea. I don't expect everyone to turn into Poland who is going ham gobbling up weapons but its nice to have a goverment that supports a robust defense industry that has a lot of highly skilled and specialized workers.
I wish I had information on how many companies are involved directly and indirectly in the production of a single F-35. From those who create the materials to those who build the computers.
According to the announcement, it looks like your wish may be granted. You're supposed to be getting the Virginia Class, and later the Aukus Class that the UK is working on.
He's taiwanese
One of your research pictures is actually Canadian navy Oberons. You can tell by the Halifax class and older DDHs anchored nearby
Thank you for telling the truth about the Collins class. I know friends who served and worked on them and said they were first class at the end of the life. I hope the next class will be better and local.
As a follower of this topic, I would say thank you for a well researched, and clear overview. Nuclear is the only option for propulsion if we are to have capability to reach out. It’s also the only realistic option in terms of underwater time to keep our troops safe.
The problem Australia has always had is that we've always wanted a conventional sub to do the job of a nuclear sub. The collins eventually did that, but the French sub would have been the same design risk all over again. At least with the nuclear sub we can just choose a proven design. I suspect the challenge will be operating and maintaining them rather than building them.
The real challenge will be finding something useful for them to do. Australia doesn't need nuclear propulsion for subs unless we plan to invade somewhere.
Way better deal to build a capable sub deterrent on nuke and not diesel .Forget battery power as Aus 25,000 mil coastline and both Pacific and East Indian Ocean make nukes the only way to go. Alright for the French to sail happily around the Med or nosey around the English channel . The idea of a Frankenstein French nuke boat made to operate like a big ass diesel and still be viable was silly..The yank stuff is very cool as long as those fit and forget US reactors get installed.
@@ianando9459 That makes no sense. Australia doesn't need subs patrolling its coastline. Surface ships are far better suited for that job, and Aus has designed and built some pretty good ones. Subs would be used to interdict supply missions, and nuclear propulsion wouldn't help that mission at all.
@@SocialDownclimber Subs in peacetime serve as intelligence elements mostly. If you need a certain projection and intelligence by sea you need to have subs. In case you have nukes and want to have full projection, the same thing.
Electric diesels on the other hand have come a long way, especially in support systems and improvement of their acoustic footprint.
Given how the Collins class came to be, I think you underestimate the difficulty of building.
It’s been a complete mess. The coalition government completely stuffed up the program, ruined our relationship with the French, offended the Japanese in 2016 and now, somehow, we’ve ended up with nuclear-powered subs from the UK and US while causing concern for our neighbours in the north and in the Pacific. 🤷♂️
I won't be surprised if Australian government makes another surprise later
It isn't about the government per say it's about how we procure that's the problem, we conduct lengthy studies then start a process to deliver the outcome over a period of decades, this may have worked in the past but the current geopolitical situation is changing far too quickly for such a process to be viable, whatever we chose would have been obsolete even before it was built and we should have gone to the top shelf right from the start but local considerations precluded that option.
And "causing concern" for our neighbours is the point, we don't want to be seen as an easy target that would make a bigger power think that it could easily take us, it's about making them think twice and looking elsewhere.
I wondered how long it would be before "muh Labor, muh Liberal, hurkadurka" raised it's ugly head. Scomo displayed great leadership when he binned the diesels and refocused the effort on nuclear subs, because suddenly the whole game has changed and that's what we now need. And no, I don't even vote.
The worst thing is that we french have nuclear submarines not diesel in the first place...
Their reactors need to be opened up every few years. In France. The US ones last the life of the boat.
Australia has never had nuclear-powered anything before: no ships, sub, power stations. The threat environment has changed very rapidly for Australia, so the diesel boats are no longer a fit. The strategic imperatives now outweigh domestic resistance to nuclear energy.
this whole thing was a mess since the french offered to build a nuclear sub first then the austrailians insisted it had to be a long range diesel, so they heavily modified the design to fit diesels instead, only for the US to offer up nuclear again and austrailia to change its mind again. All in all the french did a lot of work and are pissed off but I think this will pass eventually, alliances are stronger than a few incidents
The French were paid for all the work they did. That contract was completed on both ends. The extended part to build this new design was not filled by either party. The world situation has changed rapidly over the last few years so a change in requirements is understandable.
well the french based nuclear sub could never have been handled in australia, there was just no way of maintaining it. It needed to be refuelled etc, which effectively means after each patrol the boats would need to go to france to refuel etc... which pretty much means the subs would have been fucking useless. The french design was probably the best diesel design, however it was not suitable for the elevated security situation since the initial contract was signed.
The US and UK are more stable partners than the French. They can side with Putin at any moments.
@@checker297 you only need to refuel a nuclear sub like once, or in the case of more modern designs, never. refitting might be more difficult but I think france and austrailia could have worked out how to build the local infrastructure needed to maintain the new nukes. the problem is austrailia has basically committed to delaying new submarines until at least the mid 2030s. Australia needs to work right now to start building up a nuclear knowledge base
@@AsbestosMuffins Virginias and Astute don't need mid life refuelling. But the French sub does. Relying on the French to do that was never going to happen.
Excellent analysis of the problem.
I had inside knowledge of some of the parts that were made in Australia in Fibreglass, or FRP for the last round of Submarines - location? Toowoomba. The so called manufacturers of these FRP parts were shit scared that they would fail under pressure. The parts were so big that they had to have specific routes to get to the assembly point in Adelaide, The parts made were crap and the manufacturer knew it. Such is the status or was the status of Sub building in Australia.
haven't sunk yet.
Try to spell it!
" ... inside knowledge ..." That's a great qualification.
If you expect anyone serious, to take you seriously, you need to be more specific.
Retired librarian, MI / US
@@veramae4098 Who gives a toss if you are a "Retired librarian, MI / US" ..... I was involved as I had specific input on the FRP and authored (as part of a team) and printed their Management plans/future applications. I am not mentioning names/company details as simple search would provide this information.
Great breakdown of the situation!
Although a troubled start to the collins class, they have become 1 of the most effective if not the most effective conventional submarine in any countries service!, the accomplishments during Ripac 2000, Tandem Thrust 2001, and a few more Sub exercises where they sunk a us l.a class ssn and a Essex class, then 2 l.a class subs in an ex where they were awarded a us citation and then were asked to run through the Hawaiian underwater sound range!
Why have a Skoda when you can have a Ferrari? The SSN is the true Hunter Killer: th-cam.com/video/iCrl1mzOuYA/w-d-xo.html
Took a lot of tweaks to get them up to good reliability and stealth capability. In the end, Australian brains did it. They may be old but they are younger than I am. Service life is approaching though as anything subjected to seawater generally rusts out.
@@geradkavanagh8240 yes the tweak to the sail and the front of the bow, aswell as you've stated we have gotten them to be a major platform to be able to project power aswell as defend our sea lanes.
They most certainly are now considered to be the best following the work on the Coles Report with the 2014 version deeming the boats to be 'beyond benchmark'.
Surely the Collins success is exercises is down to the bloody excellent Australian crews more that the submarine. 🇦🇺😎
I reckon we will end up getting second hand US subs around 2040. Think of the seasprite helicopters.
I would highly recommend considering Navantia's S-80 class submarines. They are NOT nuke, state of the art technology, low thru life operation costs, they will easily connect with the LHD, AOR and Hobart class in terms of communications and information flow.
the first sub (collins) fabricated by kockums actually had the major section welds filled with bolts and welding rods and garbage. its nothing to do with bhp steel. kockums tried to scam them with a massively faulty product. i worked at asc.
How did they expect to get away with that? Wouldnt it leak after a while?
@@jonathanbelmares8241 they didn't get away with it; it's detectable on x-ray. No it won't leak; the welds are like 6-7inches deep.
The second sub- dechaineux - got a big gouge blasted into the inside of the hull from a sandblaster falling asleep with the hose propped up to pretend he was working. 2 hours full blast on one spot. Lol
@@jimmmaaay1 so how did that go down with the boss of ASC. I read he was a hard man.
Funny : Australian nuclear submarines will be excluded from New Zealand waters. New Zealand announced it will maintain the ban on nuclear-powered vessels in its waters, in place since 1985.
Given that this would mean they would lose access to 12 nautical miles around New Zealand, this would not be catastrophic. And in a war with NZ a participant; they would not uphold the ban
@@Sedna063 NZ has followed the USike an obedient dog into every war since that ban and still never allowed nuclear vessels.
That's NZ just being petty, if Australia sailed them into NZ's waters anyway they really couldn't do much about it.
@Big Roger New Zealand has much better relations with China than Australia. In mid-April 2021, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta stated that New Zealand would not let the United States-led Five Eyes alliance dictate its bilateral relationship with China and that New Zealand was uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the intelligence grouping. Mahuta's statements came amidst rising disagreements between Wellington and Canberra on how to manage relations with Beijing.
@Big Roger th-cam.com/video/NnLVhkayCMQ/w-d-xo.html
There is mistake in story, French redesigned thier atomic subs to fit diesel power as autralia asked, so changing vendor does not make sense here.
Are you saying that changing to American/UK nuclear subs makes no sense because they could have gotten French nuclear subs? Your English is incomplete. In any event, no, France was not offering nuclear subs to Australia. Part of the American/UK agreement is that Australia will learn how to make and maintain the nuclear reactors, a closely guarded secret being given to Australia. France would not provide this to Australia.
@@motmontheinternet Don’t worry, no closely kept secrets will be given to Australia. Instead Australia’s wealth is given to the US for nothing really.
@@motmontheinternet again France had nuclear subs designed, additional work was needed to redesign them for diesel power as Australia asked then Australia decided that they want nuclear subs but not French ones. Where French already spend a lot of money for conversion. Producing and training for nuclear subs was actualy easier for France. BTW France asks for part of payment of money spend on redesigning and accommodating facilities for diesel subs production.
@@TheBogimen US is much more reliable partner against china than france. This is why Australia switched.
@@GowthamNatarajanAI thank you! Someone who actually understands how the real world works!
5:19 “(The Australian navy) wanted it to be faster, deeper diving, stealthier, and run with fewer people.”
It’s nice to want better things, but come on!
Heard a saying this about this class. "We never had an issue going down, coming back up was the hard part!"
I mean, i was working as an intern at ng when the cancellation hit us. It felt really out of the blue. More than a des australian technicians working with us in France were also surprised by it. Personally that cancellation motivatited my n+1 to no renew the contract with me and a whole lot of alumnie. That cancellation litteraly impacted Big way on my life :)
I am Australian, and I'm honestly so embarrassed our government treated France and Naval Group like they did. Most Australians were ashamed of our government's behaviour.
Thanks for detailing this situation. Never heard the specifics from the media which made Australia and the US look worse.
Aussie here. Great to hear an external POV on the subs. The problems with RAN procurement would be much simpler if decisions were separate from industrial considerations and vice versa. I don’t know why we just didn’t buy decent subs instead of making the decision much more complex by building them locally. Trying to build subs locally is a bit like trying to build F-35s locally.
Sound theory but it doesn’t consider intellectual property including plans and specs to manufacture parts in Aus, it appears the French just wouldn’t hand over plans or intellectual rights, same as the O boats with the Scot’s. Buying them off the shelf just as you’d buy a car sounds simple, much, much more to consider, whole of life considerations, including industry ability and involvement appears crucial.
@@peterjames9610 Im not sure whether you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me. The strategic risk of buying off the rack (ha ha) subs from the US seems to me a sounder way of avoiding the world pain we were looking at by locally manufacturing bespoke subs. If supply and service from the US becomes a problem then I think Australia (and the rest of the World) will have a lot more to worry about than the loss of jobs in Adelaide.
Australia needs to build something. Subs are as good as anything. Once a process gets started it gets better. Australia's problem has been an anti-nuclear obsession. Logic has flown out of the window.
@@CrRodney1 Build cars, build white goods, build renewable restructure, build software, build world class health - but build six bespoke submarines? You’re having a laugh.
Australia has a low population and a small economy. It isn’t realistic to expect to be able to build all military equipment at any reasonable cost, quality, and timeframe. Opting to import subs instead of building locally would have been a good option. Focus limited resources on doing a few things well rather than trying to do everything on your own can be more efficient and help support more total jobs in the long run.
Didn't French offered Nuclear subs as well, to which Australia said no?
The problem is that the offer came with major issues that the Aukus deal doesn’t have. Primarily the US nuclear reactor will not require domestic nuclear power capability, its a legit plug and play nuclear engine, aside from maintenance there won’t be a need to manage nuclear fuel needs, meanwhile The French offer would require domestic nuclear power capability and require a yield level that is on the edge of weaponised yields
Pretty much. Which required the French to modify the design of their nuclear subs to become diesel subs and that was one reason for the cost overruns.
@@gcharny8022 This exactly. There was a concern that we might actually breach our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if we got the French subs.
@@gcharny8022 "The French offer would require [...] a yield level that is on the edge of weaponised yields". That's the opposite of the truth -- the US/UK reactors use HEU, near bomb grade. The French sub reactors work on power grade LEU, which is why they need mid-life refueling.
France submarine uses low-enriched uranium (LEU) at less than 20%, a level similar to that used in nuclear power plants for electricity production. LEU uranium must be renewed every 10 years, a delicate and dangerous operation, but it cannot be diverted for military purposes.
American and British submarines use highly enriched uranium (HEU), more than 93%. Its lifespan is 30 years, but precisely because it is enriched, it can be used to make a bomb.
Australia should consider HALEU as fuel. Using HEU may not be feasible because of nonproliferation restrictions and local public opposition to obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. High Assay Low Enriched Uranium is enriched to around 15-19.75% and is more efficient than LEU while remaining under the 20% limit that allows civilian use and easier international transfer.
France should consider switching to HALEU for both civilian and military nuclear power use. This would increase time between refueling and increase power output available for a given reactor volume.
There are strategic advantages to building your own, in terms of maintenance, repair, etc. I hope it all works out.
Good luck trying to mine and refine nuclear material in country that is against it even though it's way less dangerous than coal and gas.
From Naval News: "We can be confident that the submarine will essentially be British or American. There are five main options to consider.
The first two are the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy’s existing designs, the (1) Virginia Class and (2) Astute Class. Then there are the corresponding next generation attack submarine programs, the (3) SSN(X) and (4) SSN(R). And lastly, (5) a whole new design but leveraging technology from US and UK."
2:22 the 2 Chilean Oberons: (L-R) Hyatt and O' Brien. A Balao class, most likely Simpson (ex-USS Spot) with it's 1970 modified sail. In the top right corner cruiser Almirante Latorre (ex Göta Lejon). Picture from sometime before 1982, the year the last Balao class was decomssioned from the Chilean navy
Australian's are a tad bit difficult to work with.. they set a goal but remain very unsure how to reach it and what is needed..
A lack of experience/knowledge nor training about the goal they want to achieve with ever changing priorities..
That is the feeling I get when working on projects with them..
I got the feeling the French just said to yes to everything the we wanted so they would get the contract. Local participation in the build was a thing they said yes to and a big reason why they got the contract, but as soon as the contract was signed they started back tracking and saying Australia didn't have the industry to do it. Well, if you looked into that before saying you could do it you might've seen that. smh.
I would not doubt if that's the case, we have a massive brain drain problem that's been going on for 2 decades, some would argue for even longer. Despite having a prestigious education system that churns out fantastic students and some innovations in medicine and technology, none of them ever stay in shore.
I am an Australian working for other Australians on large projects and it is the same feeling.
@@Dylang01 "I got the feeling the French just said to yes to everything the we wanted so they would get the contract." well this is why there was cost overrun, every request added cost.
Admittedly a better approach would be to go for the french nuclear sub from the start, lowest risk, proven design and known cost.
@@Dylang01 Sadly that's what happens with any vendors and bids. Get the contract first then work out what corners to cut later.
from my understanding SAAB/Kockums were not allowed to enter the bid for new subs, which begs several questions alingside this video about the procurement process.
Very best case scenario for US subs availability is 2040. If they ever get delivered.
Australia will see them when US get the newer version and give older and less powerfull ones.
@@inwedavid6919 With the minor problem that the US subs can't be refueled, If the US sells you their old ones they will have a 10-20 year life before they have to be scrapped.
Spot on assessment of our sus situation. Kudos. Great video.
Scott Morrison is the worst Prime Minister Australia has EVER HAD!
The submarine fiasco is just one of his failures....
The government is running on grift :(
But how good's the cricket?
Makcolm Turnbull was PM when the French were chosen. Morrison had no involvement in this disaster of a decision. Get your facts straight. AUKUS is a giant step in the security of Australia.
@@oweneather1435 I giant step into turd.💩
@@oweneather1435 Oh I have my facts straight... It will take more than 15000 days before we even get to the APPROX date we MIGHT get our first submarine. AUKUS will mean we have to have nuclear abilities on land and we can only afford 1 base for refit and repair. China/Enemy takes it out and then what? We're f***d! If we had conventional subs, we could use any base and buy 10 x more.. With 10-20 sub around Australia and near china, they wouldn't come close to us. But I'm soooo glad that Harvey Normans money is safe, hScummo's pedo protecting priest is doing ok and he support his supposed rapists in his cabinet.. Oh yer, how good is sport rorts.. Ya flog.
At time stamp 3:00 it sure looks like it is a photo of the RCN O boats at Halifax harbor. Ojibwa Onondaga and Okanogan.
At 3:57 your graphic stated Australia only had one aircraft carrier, Melbourne. In fact Australia's first aircraft carrier was HMAS Sydney, which served from 1948 to 1955/1958 as a carrier, MELBOURNE took over this role. During this same period, the RAN also had HMAS Vengeance, from 1952 to 1955, which was on sold to Brazilian navy in the late 1950s. Today, the RAN has HMAS Canberra and Adelaide based on the Juan Carlos I design.
Also the Lucas Heights facility is still operating, so Australia does have both a research nuclear reactor and universities that train people.
Lucas Heights nuclear facility is for producing Radioactive isotopes mainly for medical and research tools. We don't have any other Nuclear facility or Power Station.
HMAS Melbourne was a potent Naval ship.
Sinking the United States Destroyer Frank E Evans and the Australian Destroyer, HMAS Voyager by running over both of them. It then tried to sink a Sydney Harbour Ferry.
The Australian Navy no longer have any ship that could be considered an Aircraft Carrier, capable of using fixed wing aircraft, after the retirement of HMAS Melbourne in 1982
@@grahamlucas2712 Yes, the carriers are known officially as landing helicopter dock ships of the Royal Australian Navy, but rotor aircraft land and take off from it and it has a ramp.
@@張博倫-r2j
An offshore oil rig have a Helicopter landing platform.
That doesn't make the Oil Platform an aircraft carrier or a ship .
I love this channel I've watched a dozen of your videos in the last few days. Your analysis is detached and in line with scientific consensus which is a rare treat especially on TH-cam.
UK here, nuclear physicist too as it happens. I understand the French are pissed but it's unreasonable to expect Australia to pick France over the United States and United Kingdom. The Queen is still Australia's Queen and holds Royal Prerogative. Technically speaking the Aussies signing with Germany or France instead of the UK would be treason!!
The bit I don't understand is why the US and UK didn't offer their nuclear subs years ago while the French, Germans and Japanese were making their tenders
Australia's best option appears obvious - import the specialists from the US and UK. Build the infrastructure and facilities required to manufacture US and UK subs in Australia. Pay whatever it takes to build to amazing top specs. Train the Aussies side-by-side with the US and UK engineers and submariners. Retain an Anglo-American core of top specialists in every relevant field in Australia. Agree with the US and UK that part of their fleets are always serviced and maintained in Australia ensuring that over the long-term the relevant technical and military personnel remain in Australia.
It's surprising the US and UK are willing to share their nuclear tech but apparently that's not exactly what's happening. The US and UK are not going to do as described above - i.e. build Astute or Virginia-class submarines in Australia. They are going to make the Collins-class a bit bigger and slap nuclear propulsion on it. Dutto (Defence Minister Peter Dutton) suggested Australia would lease boats from the Royal Navy or US Navy until new boats were built but that appears to be an impossibility
The UK and US are facing severe headwinds building and maintaining their own fleets. The 1st choice for the Aussies would probably be the RN Astute due to smaller crews, lower ticket shock and close UK ties. The Astute-class is also probably the best hunter-killer sub currently in production. The US option is of course larger with more missiles and iterative programs to include possible UUVs but more expensive. The big problem for Australia is building more Astute-class vessels is a primary goal for the UK itself. If it was possible to build more in the UK this would already be happening, but it isn't possible. By the time facilities in the UK were expanded and Australia caught up the Royal Navy would have another generation of vessel ready to replace current subs (Dreadnought-class ballistic and SSNR (Submersible Ship Nuclear Replacement)), while the US Navy would have also moved on via several iterative generations to Virginia-class as well as new classes of ship. Neither the US or UK keep subs in reserve, there are 0 spare today and even less available in future
Australia can't buy Astutes or Virginias. Australia can't lease them either. Buying or leasing old subs is a bad idea anyway as refuelling is insanely expensive for nuclear subs and the hull/other systems degrade which each dive, including stealth capabilities. The only solution is expanding the entire production line for Astutes to Australia, a process which would take several years. The reactors are actually the first thing that need to be built before the hull of the ship is even cut. Building nuclear reactors for classified attack subs is not something that gets done overnight. Again the UK and US are experiencing chronic staff shortages in this area with concerns raised about their ability to complete their own sub programs (the US currently builds 2 Virginia class subs per year but wishes to expand capacity to 3). If the US can only push out 2 or 3 per year for its own forces, which are overstretched, and the UK is even more overstretched and inefficient in sub production, there's not much hope for Australia being a customer for existing fabricators. Australia would have to become part of the infrastructure and build its own subs in harmony with building and servicing other NATO subs
Even from just the technological standpoint, its extremely unreasonable unless the French had some sort of revolutionary addition for Australia if given the choice to choose France over USA/UK. UK has both technology and political ties alongside a proven track record of operating nuclear subs, the US is the proven largest operator and most advanced operator of nuclear-anything from ships to submarines to bombs. Especially when you consider the Americans were one of the earliest to adopt nuclear powered vehicles and have devoted significant recources over time to maintain and uprade their nuclear fleet.
GSTQ - you wrote "The bit I don't understand is why the US and UK didn't offer their nuclear subs years ago while the French, Germans and Japanese were making their tenders". Well, the fact is, Australia could not afford nuclear subs and never wanted them. Population wise, we are a small country, with a correspondingly small tax base to spend on military items. Our population has grown, but we still can't afford nuclear subs - they are just a Dutton thought bubble and won't actually happen.
As far as ties are concerned, we are much closer to the USA than to Britain - have been since Britain dudded us in World War 2 and our prime minister had to go cap in hand and ask the USA for help in preventing Japanese invasion. We have defence treaties and arrangements with the USA. The British queen and now king has no relevance whatsoever to what equipment we buy.
The Virginia class programme in the US reportedly uses some 3,000 sub-contractors. If a nuclear sub based on these boats was to be built in Australia, supplies from most of these companies would presumably still be needed. As you note, in 2009 it was deemed impossible to build such a sub in Australia. It probably still is - or at least couldn't be done without expending a vast portion of our national wealth.
Despite the troubled history of the Collins class, as you state they are now extremely good & effective boats. For a particular role - that is, defending Australia. The notion of going nuclear hinges on a strategic role whereby Australian subs join Uncle Sam in his global deterrent strategy. It's pretty obvious who the assumed adversary is.
Can Australia ensure its own national security without going down this path? A lot of the published material about nuclear subs is little more than sales promotion. Maybe Australia would be better off maintaining & upgrading our existing fleet (perhaps adopting air-independent propulsion) and deploying its submarines closer to its shores.
Please read my comments above....
Defending Australia from who? And how we know they are so good,since for a certainty they have never fired a shot in anger?
Are you suggesting China doesn't pose a threat to Australia?
TRHis is a really good point that the post downplayed. Ithe decision to can the French subs was at least as much about a (really, really stupid IMO) change in geopolitical stance as much as anything else. It is hard not to feel that this change in politics was brought about by the desire to pick fights with a scary yellow foreigner to align with a big white friend, for domestic political advantage.
@@trizzybones how?
I remember well when Tony Abbott came here and basicly pissed on Sweden's submarine capabilities (Kockums) .. glad we are still building our own , and not sharing , on time and so far on budget , and still 'undetectable'.
To quote Dashed from this very comment section "Australian's are a tad bit difficult to work with.."
Australia has had two nuclear research reactors. The second, which is currently operational, replaced the first. I take your point, and these reactors are not meant for power generation, on land or otherwise. But still, they are nuclear reactors.
The video said that we have "no nuclear Power reactors" which is correct.
@@mattgriggs1888 Lucas Heights reactor. It generates power and radioactive medical isotopes.
@@somethinglikethat2176 I don't dispute that it can/does generate a limited amount of power - but its purpose and usage is medical research and production of radioisotopes, not power generation.
I'm mean, it doesn't output to the electricity grid - does it?
You can get from one end of a paddock to the other on a ride-on mower, but you wouldn't call it a mode of transportation...
Yes James but making Technetium 99 is not the same as propelling a sub or power generation.
Hey, I really like your videos. I have a suggestion: can you make one on the photography industry of Japan and how they came to dominate the market so much as of now.
Edited for spelling
I've been following the debacle of the Australian submarine force for over 30 years. It has lurched from farce to shame and then back again. For a country that can - and does - do so many things right, the repeated missteps here are baffling at best, scandalous at worst. The present direction is hopefully the beginning of a new chapter, but I'm frigtened it's still in the same book - Australian sub's just seem perpetually jinxed.
Shouldn't be a problem now, with getting the U.S. Virginia Class that has a proven track record. Apparently, to make sure that you get it within the next 7 years, the press said they'll be willing to transfer one or two from those currently in use.
Australia has had a nuclear power station at Lucas Heights in Sydney for over half a century.
Wrong. The Lucas Heights facility is NOT a power station. It is for producing isotopes for research and mainly for medical diagnostic uses, analysis of sample materials, and production of special high purity alloys. The isotopes are produced by irradiation and chemical isolation. Its' heat output is miniscule compared to power stations.
And what is Australia going to do with the nuclear waste once these nuclear subs are decommissioned? Australia does its rare earth metal refinery work in Malaysia and won't even take back the waste. Does Australia also intend to dump that waste in Malaysia too?
I assume you are being deliberately ignorant.
IN 30+ YEARS for now, the Subs will go back to either the UK or US for decommissioning.
The small amount of waste can easily be encased and deep buried in the vast and geologically stable Australian desert. Your comment is redundant.
Australia is a literal desert continent with little to no geological activity in certain regions. You could easily create a mine and store the waste
The submarines of U.S and GB produce al lot of nuclear waste, including the submarines itself at the end of their service-time. And they has no solution for the final safe storage of it. Now comes you Aussies and say like the comments here: „No problem we have a big desert“. Can you hear the applause from London and Washington: „Oh, how nice. We make you a special price and you take our waste too?“
Better watch out before someone is luring you into something you may regret. You has to transport this stuff through your country and guard it for the next million years. When this is all so easy, why does the americans do not use their on deserts? Perhaps you can name your country soon: „down under garbage“!
What do you expect from an ex convicts?
Theres 10 or 20 years (depending on your perspective) between Tange and the DOD and the end of the cold war. You can't really treat these events as more or less one period.
The whole point of the project being local was that we could refit them and service them oursleves whcih kept money and jobs local but more importantly made sure that we were quite independent for refit and repairs and we didn't need to send our boats around the wporld for refit - which might be challenging and time consuming in time of conflict.
Additionally building local helped re-open our ship building industry locally, whihc meant our future surface cessels and the ventual follow on class for Collins could be built local and we'd have the same benefit for those.
Yes it was expensive but in the long run it is cheaper as we can build our own warships now and refit/upgrade them locally.
It gives the RAN and the nation a significant uplinft in capability.
It was an expensive project but in a lot of ways it was a learning project - we learnt how to build the most difficult type of ship in the world (other than nuclear propelled subs - we'll be doing that next :-) ).
It also makes us much more valuable as partners/allies. We now have the local skills to re-fit other nations vessels.
So a US or UK sub or surface vessel that is damaged in the region can be reparied/refit here instead of transitting around half of the earth.
The Collins class was a success in the end, and it was a way bigger success than most people give it credit for.
The Collins class also turned out to be a very capable platform - possibly one of the most capable conventional subs in the world -the same combat systeems and weapomns as the USN and probably the logest endurance conventional boats extant.
TBH our needs have not changed - but our government has finally accepted that conventional subs are not really the best fit for a country which operates its subs in a different hemisphere.
People talk about the cost over-runs, but it doesn't matter where or who we buy vessels from, there will be cost overuns. Every defense project has cost overruns.
At least when we build local a good chunk of that money stays local, both budgetted and over spend.
The political promise is not why we need to buikld local - we need to build local so that we can maintain our own vessels and by extension our sovereignty.
That is another factor that many people do not understand about many of our defense projects is that
Australia frequently pays to have access/license the IP in our defense projects, e/g/ we get the code and the engineering data. Many countries who buy from third parties don't license the tech which means their kit is cheaper BUT they can not repair, modify their kit without the approval of the country they bought it from - because they don't have the code/data to make the changes.
With regards to personel and technology required for nukes - RAN, RAAF and to a lesser extend Aussie Army personel spend years in the US already learning how to maintain US supplied systems.
I know a number of RAN ratings ("enlisted" men) who lived in the US for 18-14 months learning how to look after US supplied radars, missile, combat systems etc, so training and bringing the personel capability up to speed is not as hard to get over as people think. We'll just do what we normally do when we need expertise we can't train locally - we'll send people to the US or UK.
Quite possibly we'll have US officers/SNCOs on exchange if required. Not many people understand the depth of the US/UK/Australian relationship in this regards. US, UK and Australian officers are fairly routinly posted into each other's forces chains of command. The depth of those relationships is very deep - as demonstrated by the fact the US has already signalled it is willing to share it's nuclear tech, which it has only done once before.
For years Australian general has been posted as a deputy commander of the US Army Pacific. Pretty sure we have RAAF and RAN officers in similar roles at similar levels. In effect Australian officers are embedded in US command structures on a semi permanent basis, at least in the Indo Pac.
At the lower levels we have people as low as corporals on year or multi year exchanges with UK and US forces and those exchange troops do deplopy and command elements iof the host nations in operatoions, should operations occur.
Looks like you're going to be get what you mentioned, about the U.S. sharing its nuclear tech. For the first time since sharing it with the UK the U.S. is going to be selling Virginia Class nuclear subs to Australia.
Australia should procure the nuclear boats OS as this will save time and money, but there should be a lot less nuclear boats supplemented by Collins 471-2 BATCH 2. We can have 3 Collins boats for every AUKUS boat on the same money. Collins can take the same sensors and weapons, but it needs more of them and more endurance. Research entered into to examine the AIP (air independent propulsion) meant the hulls would be stretched, which added volume and displacement. This means that a larger version of Collins is already envisaged which would make it able to carry more weapons, and a larger new tech battery. The new tech battery would be nickel-zink, and could extend endurance by 2.7x. This enables Collins to hold the same sortie lengths (90 days) as nuclear boats, but on a standard Collins crew. Collins 471-2 BATCH 2 are the quickest, cheapest, most accessible answer to previous government blunders, giving us a highly capable platform which is quieter than the nuclear boats.
have to change the name though to make it politically palatable, maybe call it Commodore.
Just quietly pump out 1 every couple of years. Add upgrades during construction to avoid major refits and retire older ones. I'm partly in agreement here but having some nuclear powered ones( not nuclear armed) would be advantageous.
@@geradkavanagh8240 I see that too, but we dont need 6, 8, or 10 nuclear powered boats. The core of our defence (as opposed to unrestricted global presence) is in the littoral waters to our north west around the top and to our east. These are better conditions for a Collins sized boat than a Virginia. I think 4 nuclear boats would be plenty and am appellant to those boats built overseas for speed and cost reasons. Assuming they cost 5 bill +, thats 12 Collins boats in the same budget. Assuming the nuclear boats are much more makes the formula even more inviting. Ive been hearing closer to 10 bill each
Another dope and informative topic. ❤️✌️
I have two questions… can it stay submerged for more than 20 minutes and does it have a pump jet?
Please explain. (No, don’t.) 🤣
So excited to see you on Manifold!
One thing you didn’t mention that I read is that Australia would now need to satisfy a lot of IAEA requirements/oversight as well in order to become nuclear capable and the supporting infrastructure
I don't think the IAEA have jurisdiction over naval sub reactors. They definitely would never be given access to the sub to inspect the reactor.
@@Dylang01 France would have provided the nuclear subs, just not the technical designs and ToT for proprietary systems like the sonar and reactor.
@@admiralprestoncole Therefore the subs would be useless without the French having to service the subs. Therefore a loss of autonomy for Australia and being held hostage to France.
@@Dylang01 You're getting the U.S. Virginia Class with a sealed reactor, according to the announcement. So no inspections of the reactor will be able to be done, since it's sealed.
@@chb2551 regular maintenance
Good summation.
What if the US sold the 4 Virginia class Block 1 subs to Australia? The Australian Navy would get 4 modern subs right away and the USN could put the money towards Block 5 subs.
I've read that that is being considered. Australia will buy the current proven design of either the UK or the USA. Which depends on price. The US option is a bit larger and a bit more expensive.
Well, you are getting your wish. It looks like you'll be getting new-built Virginias, with possibly 1 or 2 of them that are currently in use. The 1st ones are supposed to be arriving before 2030.
@@chb2551 Not my wish, just seemed like a good deal for the US and Australia.
" Protectionist policies had eroded Australia's industrial manufacturing capacities...."! Many would argue the reverse in fact occurred. Removing the job protecting "Protectionist policies" transferred the jobs and skills development arising from them to other countries workers is the alternative viewpoint. one that I agree with. Are there any others out there who would join me in also challenge the assertion in this compelling documentary?
Agreed. We seemed to have lost the knack for punching well above our weight. Deregulation really kicked that along; undermining trade unions, designing policy that only focussed on big business, eroding the funding for organisations such as the CSIRO... On and on.
As an addendum, why would ANY sovereign nation trust another nation to build major defence technology for them? Allies today, sure, but what about tomorrow?
Dude… How do you always pick such interesting topics? Also - you used the word ‘kerfuffle’ - a sorely underused word considering it describes just about any project of bureaucracy… nice work 👍🏼
gotta get those JDM submarines
Nuclear subs really are more capable. They just should have gone with them to begin with instead of pissing off a good friend like France/
Longer range but makes a lot more noise. Going nuclear changes the intended role of the sub.
@@nickl5658 They make noise. But not a lot more. Modern nukes are very quiet.
I'm afraid that not pissing off the French is an impossible mission.
@@nickl5658 not anymore.
@@nickl5658 Not necessarily the case with the French subs, which unlike the US/UK ones are nuclear electric rather than shaft driven off the turbine. It is possible to mostly shut the reactor down and run them on batteries.
Seriously, you ought to do a t-shirt of the adorable Mule Deer(?) illustration at 00:01.
Just the deer illustration on the shirt front - and how about *ASIANOMETRY* in different Asian languages on the back?
Regards,
Kev
We can’t even manufacture car efficiently, so best of luck manufacturing nuclear subs. It should not even be up for discussion. We could manufacture patrol boats, but Australia’s expertise is in mining and agriculture.
Public opinion on nuclear has changed in Australia with most Australians now open to the idea....
This topic is WAY more complex than you describe & there are many critical considerations that are completely missed from this treatment.
But decent effort nonetheless.
I'd recommend this video for anyone who wants to learn more:
th-cam.com/video/XEDy4_ozmnw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=hypohystericalhistory
What was missed?
Who even wants to fight in Australia? It is about their ambition to project power as a member of the Aukus. By the time these subs are deployed the world geopolitical situation and local politics could be vastly different. May end up being a complete waste of money.
We've been attacked by Japan before, why would Japan ever want to attack us?
....but there is a rather large Sino-Fascist nation to the north (closer than Japan), but I've got a good feeling about those guys. It's not like a ethno-nationalistic, authoritarian, one-party dictatorship would do anything war-like....
Submarines are required anyways no matter what the geopolitical circumstances are.
I reckon it would be Better if both Osborne north/south is bae systems. Hunters-south + future ssnr(astute successor)north. It makes sense to have the whole workforce under one banner, they can easily work between both shipyards.
Whilst redeveloping/expanding north shipyard over the next 4-5 years and training workers etc, turn current asc south/sa and west/wa-and surrounding area into a thyssenkrupp shipyard over the next 2 years. Whilst the Germans build us a few type 212cd-e, we also simultaneously build the same at asc, ending up with 8 212cde by 2040. The Ssnr built in Osborne to begin production in late 2030s or early 2040s.
An astute or Virginia build, already a 25+ year old design built here would see only have 1 boat before 2040. I don’t see us getting overseas built subs as the production lines are flat chat and already behind scedule. even with U.S. shipyard expansion it is not possible and barrow facility cannot expand either.
Apparently, you are getting Virginias. Starting before 2030. Apparently, even if it means transferring a currently operating one or two, to get it there on time.
One of the ironies is that the French Diesel Design was an adaption of an existing Nuclear Design. If we bloody well wanted a Nuke Sub. Should have said so in the first place... (But in reality, if you want something complex built to a high standard, and German and Japanese options are on the table. Well, I'd rather drive a German or Japanese car rather than a French one...)
Something complex like an Airbus? Or the Fukushima nuclear plant?
@@nictamer
Given on average you fly on an airbus 50% of the time and (unlike the Boeing 373-MAX) they didn't cheap out on their design. I'm not sure what your argument is?
As for Fukushima. the story isn't that there was damage to the nuclear plant. It's that (in real terms) the direct damage was so minor. Look at photos from that quake and tsunami of the surrounding areas. They're flattened. The Nuke plant was largely unaffected. Save for the fact that the ensuing flood knocked out power and put the backup generators under water. Thus no cooling pumps = partial fuel melt.
So again. not sure what your argument is.
The nuclear reactors of Fukushima were designed by General Electric (GE). A few hours without active cooling and they go boom. Now try to figure out who will build the reactors for Australia’s new submarines. 🤯🇺🇸
@@jordanallen1862 737 Max
@@jordanallen1862 the Japanese just couldn't be bothered to build a wall high enough, but sure, they're great at complex projects. Airbus is headquartered in Toulouse and seems quite adept ar complex projects. Not that hard to understand.
You've jumped Evolved Collins. For about 10 years it was the going to happen plan. Its why the Collins IP was paid for at huge expense.
Wrong ! The french agreed to deliver nuclear submarines but the decision was political
Wrong! It was legal, the type of reactors the French use cannot be maintained in Australia because of local and international laws that Australia signed, the American ones are sealed and last the life of the boat bypassing that problem.
Sometimes it makes more sense to import something. Australia needs these subs now. So I would suggest that the USA build them... perhaps even give us one now... and we can build a facility to service it but send it back to USA for nuclear refit at end of life.
Looks like you're getting the Virginia Class nuclear sub. It's got a self-contained, sealed reactor that is made to last the life of the boat. Supposedly, you're getting at least 1 by 2030. Even if it means taking one from the U.S. active service to get it.
@@chb2551 Yes I think the deal makes sense... USA sort us out this decade... UK build the next gen model. UK need the work but the US to help us with a fleet in the meantime. So it is a good solution.
As for the cost.. I think we can afford it. I am not sure we can afford not to have it.
Obviously Australia needs a Submarine Service and to do that they need submarines. It really comes down to making a choice as to what Australia's future plans for Defense are. If Australia chooses power projection away from its own coasts then their best option is going to nuclear powered vessels. If instead Australia choses regional defense then diesel-electric is their best option. Keep in mind just how large Australia is and how much coast they have. If the status quo regarding China remains then maybe regional defense is a reasonable choice, but if that status quo changes...well, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.
the best defense is offense! Why should Australia ever give a damn about its coast line when all australian soilder are on the front line of the enemy soil?
Submarines spend their entire operational lives bathed in corrosive sea water. One of the lessons learnt operating the O-Boats was the need to be able to conduct deep level maintenance locally as it's a strategic problem and operational impracticality to have your submarines undergo maintenance on the other side of the world. So the premium for a local industry to support submarines may be a small price to pay.
I wonder if france has facilities next door in New Caledonia .
The French were promising lots of French jobs, whilst having promised that those jobs would be in South Australia…..
all lost as US won't build it in Australia
@@inwedavid6919 Yes- but the Americans never promised that the jobs would be in Australia in the first place, unlike the French.
@@Ccb88888 Hey, don't blame the French. Not their fault that Australian industry sucks.
Should have bought the Swedish AIP Sub which are the quietest in the world and can stay under for TWO Weeks
Gaining access to US reactors using highly enriched uranium is a huge, almost unbelievable, achievement, as that's weapons grade fuel. While the current UK designed attack boats are extremely good, our best bet would be to simply order the latest US boats, perhaps even opening up an extra yard to hasten construction in the US, meanwhile leasing some older US boats for jointly crewed training and defence patrols. One complicating factor going forward though, is the rapidly changing technology and increased vulnerability of manned subs. Many countries are looking at adding autonomous subs, with no need for all the complicated and expensive life support systems, indeed fire risk can be minimised by having a (variable pressurised?) nitrogen atmosphere with no oxygen at all.
Something is missing from this story.
13:50 yes tensions have risen. But merchant shipping across tension points predates 2016, this cannot be claimed as a "reason"
Also, submarines (nuclear or diesel) are never employed to protect merchant ships or sea lanes.
i also didn't get that part, who uses nuclear submarines to protect merchant ships?
Aussie here - Good content.
The whole anti-nuclear thing was so stupid from the beginning just to appease leftist idiots. We continually fuck up large procurement projects because we just don't have the local resourcing, industry or subject matter expertise. We then let ex-generals get sweet cushy jobs to advocate for less than stellar capability equipment. I'm not going to mention even getting people to run the boats - our navy is hemorrhaging personnel.
Personally, I don't mind cancelling the contract with France. If a shooting war occurs with China, I am certain UK or US would provide spare parts. France may not want to put itself in the line of fire (as demonstrated by its tepid response to Ukraine). UK and US have a shared history and culture in many ways.
The response in Ukraine was not tepid, France was among the first to announce sanctions, only lagging the likes of Poland and Lithuania. We just didn't publicize the specifics of weapons deliveries for a number of reasons, particularly the ongoing election campaign.
You could make the argument that the US, UK and Australia are stupid for continually trying to find ways to bait Chinese aggression and fear monger on how they’re such a big threat to national security. I’m sure the Chinese are shivering in their boots hearing about how Australia will get 8 new subs in 20 years.
@@sanitygone-l9y You could make the argument that democracies should lie down and accept authoritarian regimes can take whatever they want as long as they have the strength - and end up like Ukraine. China and Russia are learning that democracies fight harder and stronger unlike their own people. China only understands strength and weakness and if Australia's national Defence is based on 'hope', it's doomed. 8 submarines is more than enough to make a PLAN vessel think twice.
@@Ludendorf01 bro it’s 8 subs in 20 years, they have 20 years to make a move if they wanted to, 8 new submarines isn’t going to do anything if China truly wanted something.
@@Ludendorf01 you should watch vladimir pozners video on Putin. Western ‘democracies’ should stop using their ‘freedom’ to bully and impose their ideals on other nations all the while giving rise to authoritarian regimes.
I wish there was a video/series just as high quality as this, on the evolution of the Australian music industry. From the beginning till now, discuss, labels, bands and movements etc.
Australia's naval forces are too small to make a difference in the indo pacific .
The best bet to counter china is on Japan and India .
Lol you know nothing
You're right. When China kicks off it will be with India.
I need to point out that the French submarine project was an absolute clusterfuck from day one and was HEAVILY delayed and over-budget. They wouldn’t have had any built until after the Collins retired anyway and they were gonna cost as much or more then a nuclear powered submarine with significantly less performance.
They didn’t even have the latest tech like Fuel Cells which would’ve made them obsolete before their hulls were laid down. The french company was absolutely raping the Australian taxpayers for every penny they could and they deserve what happened to them. If they’d executed properly the first Attack Class subs would already be under construction.
It was a complete shit-show that was mishandled from the start by Australia’s politicians and France’s defense industry. The Australian people are much better off dropping that turd and getting a 21st century Submarine.
Good essay
This video completely glosses over the fact that australia cannot defend against a land based army. It is primarily reliant on air/naval denial around the huge australian continent (and abroad so other hostile countries cannot set up shop there for an attack) The french subs failed to deliver anything substantial in a reasonable manner and instead of building the ships in australia as originally intended, it was to 90% moved to foreign locations, which ultimately risked this strategy as if maintaining the subs which kept your shipping lanes open required a foreign power to be on your side, which was located halfway across the world, it would ultimately mean the submarines were effectively useless. It was rightfully canned and france should have seen this coming, if it ever was serious about keeping this deal alive it should have actually listened to the genuine concerns australia had raised over the past 15 years. The US just took advantage of the fact that australia is an unique location the pacific as it can stage large armies for amphibious invasions etc... and just gave australia a deal it could not decline. It wasnt like there was poor US/AU relations either and it further secured US support in a pacific war where potentially the US could just retreat to its own shell. I agree it will take time to fill the gaps, however there is no reason that the US/UK will not fill that capability immediately (as it will allow AU naval crew to gain experience in a similar boat). Then you have the AUKUS agreement at a whole which was before this so exclusive that only the US/UK had such a pact, not even any other five eyes alliance member had access to it, even though australia effectively makes up a significant part of that with its ability to monitor satellites without being at risk of interception by military forces outside australian domestic territory. Macron has shown that he wanted to become the next world leader at the head of a powerful EU, but with the situation in ukraine, the EU has shown to the world the only powers that are actually relevant at the moment in the west are the US and UK as they are not hamstrung by foreign powers.
Australia’s forward defence has to be air and naval but it can also defend against a ‘land based army’, whatever that means. Mostly because any invader has to get a large number of troops there and mount an amphibious invasion, which is the hard part. There’s no point just landing anywhere. Australia’s assets and facilities are concentrated in and around its few large port cities, which are all highly defensible, and defended. The smaller forward ones, Darwin and Townsville, are also major regular army bases.
On the contrary with its Land 400 program the Australian Defense Forces (ADF) become a formidable army. The problem is how to get the fighting vehicles on the battlefield, if the enemy doesn’t have the courtesy to come to Australia? They won’t ship by u-boat, but the transports will need submarine protection. Too bad nuclearization reduces the number and availability of boats.
@@jansix4287 australia simply does not have the manpower. With a population of ~25m people au has no way of sustaining military losses. Although its army is exceptional quality, it just simply does not have the numbers to sustain any real losses in a large scale conventional war. Our forces are more suitable for tactical operations, rather than strategic ones.
UK not "hamstrung by foreign powers", sure dude sure. Reality is an unicorn you can ride on isn't it.
@@checker297 - Not really. If needed Australia could easily field and sustain 25 divisions (1 per million people at 20k each). In fact we fielded almost double that ratio in WW2.
The problem for a populous enemy isn’t the size of the Australian army, it is getting enough troops here.
Some Australians distrusted the Japanese and went so far as to suggest that the Japanese would build-in some sort of doomsday device to destruct the subs they built for Australia if ever we were at war with them. Imagine all the exploding Japanese cars and televisions etc!!
You don’t sink Japanese warships with a TV. 😂🤡
Australia didn't select the Japanese option because they refused to allow for domestic manufacturing, which was one of our main requirements.
Since then, Australia has passed a law exempting foreign military personnel and their contractors from prosecution from local laws. 1. Environmental damage 2. Will US personnel treat Australian locals any better than they treat Korean and Japanese people where they have bases? This legislation suggests Australia is expecting alot of rapes and environmental damage along with whatever other crimes US military wish to commit.
Earned your 50c then?
@Watcher POS
Australia and usa are brothers not asians
Building a modern warship is very complex and requires an industrial base that is not “on and off”. Governments rarely understand this sexless idea. A common design would help but the issue is still the fitters who make it work and keeping them generation after generation
Those collins class sure look as if they looked at the word stealth and gave it the middle finger.
It's really important to understand that the ongoing maintenance and repair cost have proven to be far more expensive for submarines and ships purchased for overseas. Building them here is far cheaper in the long run. Secondly having to sail them to an overseas port for major repair during a conflict is unthinkingly stupid.
This has been an Australian joke for 15 years now. My stepson at the time was earmarked by Melbourne university to be part of the engine design. That’s 18 years ago.
The only way to acquire independant capability in any thing is to do it yourself rather than but some thing from some one else, it might cost more in the short term but saves heaps in the long term and builds up technological know how and provided further research that other wise would not occur. As to the public reaction , in 2022 , because of the politial issues in South East Asia the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Australia is not only smiled on by the public but MOST of the public would like them to also have nukes on board under direct Australian control, finally on these issues if a country with the inability of Pakistan has nuclear capacity then it is certain that Australia can if it wants to..and it SHOULD!
The HMAS Melbourne was not he only aircraft carrier there was also the HMAS Sydney which served in the Korean war.
No it’s not!!!
The skippies have bought 6 Astute clad subs from the UK. First one has already been tested an soon to be commissioned if not done at time of writing!!!!
Thanks for sharing guys
Paul 12.27 gmt Uk cheers
Source? AFAIK British shipyards are busy building the Dreadnought class, they don't have free capacity to build submarines for Australia.
This is not true. No subs have yet been built for the RAN.
Those little towers in the front would create noise
All I want to say is that Australian politicians have to be among the world´s most incompetent leaders on earth! How this Submarine debacle has been handled is the greatest source of disbelief and astonished laughter ever. After all these years, the ending is hilarious for all except the Frensh.
As an Aussie, so long as they are good enough for the nations defence I am happy.
Well, they just announced you're getting the U.S. Virginia Class, so you're all set.
People in the US complain about defense budget over runs, while seem bad. But in comparison to other countries, its not too bad. the Soviets/Russia seem to be able to develop systems on a tight budget, but in actual combat use, has some less than desirable characteristics