The best part of Aukus is part 3 where they design the new boat using the synergy between the excellent British hulls and US weapons systems and Australian enhancements in both crew and the systems overall. Excellent post, keep them coming.. please don't slow down just because there is a war going on. We love your content Horizon!
US equipment much better than UK or AUS. UK is has been and AUS is never was. Our submarines do not leak and the reactors do not shut down for no reason.
@@couttsw i know he is Russian.. i don't consider Russian coverage of this stuff a threat. well before the wars Horizon was making great videos of all types. i like his voice overs and his content.
@@LeonAust with the cost savings you could see twice the number of hulls. and it allows us to focus on unmanned undersea vehicles... think of Aukus as the underwater NGAD.
That last comment about nuclear weapons is ridiculous Australia has had weapon systems that have a nuclear carrying capability for many years like the F/A-18A Hornet, F/A-18F Super Hornet, F-35A, Mk 41 VLS of which had Tomahawks nuclear warheads in the cold war, the old F-111 and even the Dassault Mirage III and the old Canberra bomber so that argument is redundant. With the miniaturisation of nuclear weapons you can put them on anything. Australia did not receive the nuclear weapons or connection hardware/software that is fitted to those nuclear capable weapon systems. Any way Russia and China didn't lift a finger to stop North Korea getting nuclear weapons, this is a country that spends over 30 to 40 percent of it GDP on weapons instead of feeding/caring for their population. The Australian defence budget is only 2 to 3 percent GDP whilst being a nation that looks after its people and has a reputation of being a peaceful nation. North Korea on the other hand has a dictator despot leader spends all his money on nukes then begs to the UN for financial help! How did he develop his rockets/missiles/targeting systems/small nuclear warheads so quick? with help from China that's how. The wrong countries are getting nukes. The UN, Europe, South America have got to help the US to stop it now because I can see in the future Belarus, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia striving to get nukes and those are the countries you should be worrying about getting nuclear weapons not Australia......................wakeup!
Australia's biggest problem is its politicians, none have the balls to say we are going to develop our own reactors and our own subs. We kowtow to other countries. Our pollies are gutless wonders all looking for the next election.
VPM does not mean Trident. Trident requires a hull diameter of 40ish feet and even then required a turtle-back on top of that. Virginia-class is only 30ish feet in diameter. Trident II is approximately 44 feet in length. VPM is similar to what is in Ohio and the other SSGNs but length is not one of those similarities.
The Seawolfs had a way bigger budget assumed for them during planning. I bet if they were getting built now, they'd be more expensive than the Columbias.
Love the American uniforms a real class act! Beautiful boat perfection engineering . Can’t imagine the maintenance that goes into these machines of the deep. There would have to be a prerequisite to be in top physical condition. No room for fatties down there. Hard to do though especially trapped in a boat for months on end. Special kind of men submariners are. No room for errors and you would pretty well have to know everyone else’s trade.
The Virginia Class nuclear submarines are an excellent safety addition to Australia's future NAVY, which has a healthy need for submarines that will need to be of greater detection and fighting power, along with the need for the new subs to be comfortable with covering large distances, greater than the overall capacities of the existing Collins Class submarines, those that will be replaced by these larger Virginia Submarines !!!
The Aukus subs will never be nuclear armed. Australian does not want or need this. Nuclear missiles would cause more problems and deliver very little advantage.
I find it very interesting that the Navy still insist on hiding the screw structure. In the late 80s, I did two screw changes on 688 class submarines. They were performed at night. The screw came in on a tractor and trailer setup, all draped with canvas. The rigging equipment I borrowed from the shipyards, was installed with the cover still there. The damned cover was not removed until the screw was about to be lowered into the water! I must say it is a very interesting design! Too bad Clinton sold....... gave away the machining technology to produce the screws!
Ships don't have "Brothers", and never have. Idk where you got that idea even if you've first started studying ships and navies for the last 10 minutes.
I don't think that the subs that Australia are getting are loading nuclear weapons. Probably they are getting conventional weapons. No one has used a nuclear weapon since us back in ww2 Japan. I'm not against nuclear weapons. But I don't believe anyone want a repeat of that. Hopefully we learned our lesson in history. Nonetheless. Australia should have a conventional means to protect itself. It's a important trade partner. Not only for my country but for the rest of the world.
Sarge, the Virginia class isn't intended to outperform the Sea Wolf class. The Virginias are a compromise which were designed to save money (as compared to the Sea Wolves).
As long as you can understand him, isn’t that enough? No need to leave some snarky comment brother, English could be his second language, or his fourth, you never know. Though if you are genuinely having trouble, it might be better next time to leave some honest corrections so that his content can become even more accessible in the future. Anyways I hope you have a nice day/night regardless
$380 billion of failed funds could provide us with maybe....? 20 LHDs 40 Hobart class Destroyers 60 Hunter class Frigates 40 of these Upgraded OPVS with enough change to aquire 20 LA class fast attack subs from the yanks. Maybe I should run for politics for the defence ministers position...? Those ships would make us what... maybe the 5th most capable navy on the planet...? IDK... im a civilian with big dreams
Hobart is outdated and under-gunned design. As for 20 LHD's who or what are we sticking inside them. You could fit the entire Australian Army just about in 20 LHD's and not just the combat troops either, and lets not mention the Hunters at this point, another under-gunned boat given it's size 32 strike length VLS on a boat basically the same size as an American Flight 2 perhaps even 3 Arleigh Burke designs tonnage wise with their 96 cell VLS.
Ha haaa 😂 Current Collins class availability is about 2 subs operational at any one time because of a lack of crews. So good luck manning a more complex and expensive weapons platform and expecting it to be combat capable as a full squadron.
Here's a thought - perhaps they might be planning on recruiting and training additional sailors? They could offer sign-up bonuses and better pay to increase the enlistment rate.
This story is more than bizarre , so it turns out that Australia was going to but 12 French submarines for a total of 50 billion dollars . America then twisted Australia's arm and told them no so they can be part of AUKUS . Australia agrees and joins this AUKUS group and now it's going to cost them around 250 billion dollars . Yes this makes a lot of sense to which only Australia understands .
No mate Australian went to the US with this proposal. Your also leaving out the fact that the French submarines were conventionally powered an unable to meet Australian’s changing strategic requirements. The cost that everyone keeps sighting for the AUKUS subs does not only include the vessels, but also the construction of submarines bases on the east and west coasts, as well as new training facilities and production facilities. These are once off costs and do not reflect the price of subs themselves.
This is not what I've read , I very much doubt what you say is credible . The deal with Australia and France was only recently signed and because of the abrupt cancellation Australia had to pay France 650 million dollars cancellation fee . This would would imply that AUKUS was not in the making but a knee jerk reaction by America to counter China's growing influence in the pacific .
I don't know if the narration is an AI voice or just a stupid person who doesn't know how to pronounce names like Trafalgar but it drives me crazy to listen to. It was pronounced as Tref - Fell - Gar.
You are talking non-sense FYI, those vert tubes were originally for ballistic missiles before they adapted it for cruise, so of course they can be readapted back to ballistic.
what everyone fails to see is Australia is co signed to non proliffiation treaty , non nukes, and also it has no nuke experience or technical trades / training for nuclear systems . and AI non manned subs are being massivly built by everyone now, so manned subs may be past there used by date , just as drones have taken over and will continue taking over missions , especially now with the f35 and its drone wings / swams etc. Also australia cant built a nuke boat or even a collins boat for that matter, the shipyard in SA is hopeless.and how are we to pay for these boats that the yanks cant build enopugh for themselves let alone australia.And who wants to go to war with china, they own most of australia anyway thanks to our treasonous governments over the last 20 years.
@@scotty311 That doesn't appear to be the plan at this point of the 3 agreed to be purchased and transferred 2 a to be boats that will have at least 20 out of their 33 year life left and 1 will be a new build off the production line.
Sounds so fancy until you notice that the Yasen Class for the Russians and the Type 095 SSN and type 096 SSBN for the Chinese Submarine Fleet in significant numbers outpaces the American submarine manufacturing capabilities, the AUKUS deterrence variable seems to be a strawman's bravado at best. It will not deter squiddly squat to the Chinese and Russian Naval power porjection now and certainly well into the future.
What are you talking about? There are a whopping 3 Yasens in service, while twice that many Virginias are being built *right now*, plus 22 have been completed, and 21 are active. And the Types 095 and 096 aren't even being built yet.
The new version of the Tomahawk will have land attack and a similar anti shipping capability to the LRASM albeit at double the LRASM range. The LRASM has stealth and increased tactical awareness.
This channel is the prime example of how the algorithm is gonna kill you if you don't put out videos for like 5 months.
Algorithm represents life. If you aren't fast, you ain't winning. Quality only matters when you have lots of it.
@@Justineexywrong.
The best part of Aukus is part 3 where they design the new boat using the synergy between the excellent British hulls and US weapons systems and Australian enhancements in both crew and the systems overall. Excellent post, keep them coming.. please don't slow down just because there is a war going on. We love your content Horizon!
Being a new design mostly at BAE, it does make sense to have one submarine design for the AUKUS-SSN, Astute replacement and USN SSNX.
Until you find out Horizon is a state actor, go to their about page and see where they are from?
US equipment much better than UK or AUS. UK is has been and AUS is never was. Our submarines do not leak and the reactors do not shut down for no reason.
@@couttsw i know he is Russian.. i don't consider Russian coverage of this stuff a threat. well before the wars Horizon was making great videos of all types. i like his voice overs and his content.
@@LeonAust with the cost savings you could see twice the number of hulls. and it allows us to focus on unmanned undersea vehicles... think of Aukus as the underwater NGAD.
Man I miss my submarine days. USS STONEWALL JACKSON and USS WEST VIRGINIA
That last comment about nuclear weapons is ridiculous Australia has had weapon systems that have a nuclear carrying capability for many years like the F/A-18A Hornet, F/A-18F Super Hornet, F-35A, Mk 41 VLS of which had Tomahawks nuclear warheads in the cold war, the old F-111 and even the Dassault Mirage III and the old Canberra bomber so that argument is redundant.
With the miniaturisation of nuclear weapons you can put them on anything.
Australia did not receive the nuclear weapons or connection hardware/software that is fitted to those nuclear capable weapon systems.
Any way Russia and China didn't lift a finger to stop North Korea getting nuclear weapons, this is a country that spends over 30 to 40 percent of it GDP on weapons instead of feeding/caring for their population.
The Australian defence budget is only 2 to 3 percent GDP whilst being a nation that looks after its people and has a reputation of being a peaceful nation.
North Korea on the other hand has a dictator despot leader spends all his money on nukes then begs to the UN for financial help!
How did he develop his rockets/missiles/targeting systems/small nuclear warheads so quick? with help from China that's how.
The wrong countries are getting nukes. The UN, Europe, South America have got to help the US to stop it now because I can see in the future Belarus, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia striving to get nukes and those are the countries you should be worrying about getting nuclear weapons not Australia......................wakeup!
BS. This is a blatant disregard of nuclear proliferation agreements. It is disgusting. It is a *nuclear powered* submarine!!!!
Australia's biggest problem is its politicians, none have the balls to say we are going to develop our own reactors and our own subs. We kowtow to other countries. Our pollies are gutless wonders all looking for the next election.
❤ I love these types of videos, thanks for the information, I already subscribed to the three channels 😊
What three channels?
VPM does not mean Trident. Trident requires a hull diameter of 40ish feet and even then required a turtle-back on top of that. Virginia-class is only 30ish feet in diameter. Trident II is approximately 44 feet in length. VPM is similar to what is in Ohio and the other SSGNs but length is not one of those similarities.
He's alive!
I went aboard The USS Missouri at it's christening in Groton Connecticut. An amazing boat and expensive.
TheBruce56 - what does your visit to the Missouri have to do with this video's topic?
Well, it is a Virgina class sub which was the video's topic.@@pike100
It’s funny that many would say that no matter how good the Virginia-class is and can be. The Seawolf-class still outclasses it.
The Seawolfs had a way bigger budget assumed for them during planning. I bet if they were getting built now, they'd be more expensive than the Columbias.
How many Sea Wolf's are there ? 2 ?
@@toolegittoquit_0013
@@toolegittoquit_0013
@@toolegittoquit_001 Two with the SSN Jimmy Carter being a modified version for a total of three.
Virginia with the SLBM. Interesting
Not all Virginias will have the VPM
i doubt they are tall enough to carry them.
When you're receiving nuclear material, you own it .. hmmmm..
Australia 🇦🇺 will be attacked by nuclear weapons.. hmmmm..
Love the American uniforms a real class act! Beautiful boat perfection engineering . Can’t imagine the maintenance that goes into these machines of the deep. There would have to be a prerequisite to be in top physical condition. No room for fatties down there. Hard to do though especially trapped in a boat for months on end. Special kind of men submariners are. No room for errors and you would pretty well have to know everyone else’s trade.
I really wonder the worthiness of keeping cruise missiles on these high cosr machines.
very worth it
Could u imagine being out in the ocean swimming off your boat deck and a boomer is swimmin directly under you. What a sight
Such a massive flex that we put this on TH-cam!
The Virginia Class nuclear submarines are an excellent safety addition to Australia's future NAVY, which has a healthy need for submarines that will need to be of greater detection and fighting power, along with the need for the new subs to be comfortable with covering large distances, greater than the overall capacities of the existing Collins Class submarines, those that will be replaced by these larger Virginia Submarines !!!
very good thank you 👍
liked and subscribed
2:41 At a glance you might think dude is picking plays for Tecmo Bowl ! 😉
The Aukus subs will never be nuclear armed. Australian does not want or need this. Nuclear missiles would cause more problems and deliver very little advantage.
Australias problem is NZ, bunch of Nuke hating pansies. We interact with them too much.
Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia. 😅
I find it hard to believe the US would be selling Virginia Class subs, even to allies
they dont have a choice
Stunning sunset/sunrise? video of surfaced sub with sailors and Old Glory on the conning tower at 9:28.
The Navy wanted what 18 of these built? The Government approved 3! Two are in service. Huh!
I hope Australia keeps their conventional subs. They need to forward base them, so they can be more effective.
The “good guys” need MANY more subs!!!
OMG they are so many nuclear submarines there
US navy only want to buy 1 SSN per year FY25...how could u have enough SSN given to Australia!!!
1:00 I’m no navy man and never been anywhere near one, but they have horns?????
I find it very interesting that the Navy still insist on hiding the screw structure. In the late 80s, I did two screw changes on 688 class submarines. They were performed at night. The screw came in on a tractor and trailer setup, all draped with canvas. The rigging equipment I borrowed from the shipyards, was installed with the cover still there. The damned cover was not removed until the screw was about to be lowered into the water!
I must say it is a very interesting design!
Too bad Clinton sold....... gave away the machining technology to produce the screws!
Clinton did what?
Pretty sure it was Toshiba-Konigsberg that sold the technology to the Soviet Union
@@antonignacio3094 instigated and set up by Clinton
India Aukus Deal Signed With USA
Drones are the future of undersea defence systems. These drones will be cheaper and expendable. They can carry torpedoes and missiles.
ANY weapons you can Imagine!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese are worried.
Ships don't have "Brothers",
and never have.
Idk where you got that idea
even if you've first started
studying ships and navies
for the last 10 minutes.
Y como será el clase Columbia ???
is this binkov’s battle?
I don't think that the subs that Australia are getting are loading nuclear weapons. Probably they are getting conventional weapons. No one has used a nuclear weapon since us back in ww2 Japan. I'm not against nuclear weapons. But I don't believe anyone want a repeat of that. Hopefully we learned our lesson in history. Nonetheless. Australia should have a conventional means to protect itself. It's a important trade partner. Not only for my country but for the rest of the world.
The Old Dominion.
Longtime since i watched the video of Russia's submarine - The borei class .
It's remains to be seen if "cheaper" Virginia class will outperform the Seawolf
Sarge, the Virginia class isn't intended to outperform the Sea Wolf class. The Virginias are a compromise which were designed to save money (as compared to the Sea Wolves).
Compro 50.000 submarinos dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro
Time to set these loose on the orcs
🇺🇲🇬🇧🤝🇦🇺
The U.S. builds the best subs since WWII.. I like the OHIO class ships better..
This video taught me a lot, a lot of new and weird ways to Mispronounce simple words!🙉🙉🙉
As long as you can understand him, isn’t that enough? No need to leave some snarky comment brother, English could be his second language, or his fourth, you never know. Though if you are genuinely having trouble, it might be better next time to leave some honest corrections so that his content can become even more accessible in the future. Anyways I hope you have a nice day/night regardless
$380 billion of failed funds could provide us with maybe....?
20 LHDs
40 Hobart class Destroyers
60 Hunter class Frigates
40 of these Upgraded OPVS
with enough change to aquire 20 LA class fast attack subs from the yanks.
Maybe I should run for politics for the defence ministers position...?
Those ships would make us what...
maybe the 5th most capable navy on the planet...?
IDK... im a civilian with big dreams
Hobart is outdated and under-gunned design. As for 20 LHD's who or what are we sticking inside them. You could fit the entire Australian Army just about in 20 LHD's and not just the combat troops either, and lets not mention the Hunters at this point, another under-gunned boat given it's size 32 strike length VLS on a boat basically the same size as an American Flight 2 perhaps even 3 Arleigh Burke designs tonnage wise with their 96 cell VLS.
Tons of new high tech and paying jobs...
Ha haaa 😂 Current Collins class availability is about 2 subs operational at any one time because of a lack of crews. So good luck manning a more complex and expensive weapons platform and expecting it to be combat capable as a full squadron.
Here's a thought - perhaps they might be planning on recruiting and training additional sailors? They could offer sign-up bonuses and better pay to increase the enlistment rate.
@@pike100 they have been trying that for decades. Still doesn't work
Why the copyrighted music from Dune ? Please change music before a copyright infringement happens .
'
american company navy shipward need to build 10 better bigger strongger submarines than cheap low classic ussr russia typhoon down as kursk
We need to build more ships ,submarine etc stop landing on the moon it's a waste of money 💰 it's time to build more aircraft carriers
KINO
This story is more than bizarre , so it turns out that Australia was going to but 12 French submarines for a total of 50 billion dollars .
America then twisted Australia's arm and told them no so they can be part of AUKUS .
Australia agrees and joins this AUKUS group and now it's going to cost them around 250 billion dollars .
Yes this makes a lot of sense to which only Australia understands .
A ssser ruske
Actually I am not sure that we do!!
No mate Australian went to the US with this proposal. Your also leaving out the fact that the French submarines were conventionally powered an unable to meet Australian’s changing strategic requirements. The cost that everyone keeps sighting for the AUKUS subs does not only include the vessels, but also the construction of submarines bases on the east and west coasts, as well as new training facilities and production facilities. These are once off costs and do not reflect the price of subs themselves.
This is not what I've read , I very much doubt what you say is credible .
The deal with Australia and France was only recently signed and because of the abrupt cancellation Australia had to pay France 650 million dollars cancellation fee .
This would would imply that AUKUS was not in the making but a knee jerk reaction by America to counter China's growing influence in the pacific .
@@BaconGold790 But why didn't we build them ourselves?
Would you intercept me?
I’d intercept me
I don't know if the narration is an AI voice or just a stupid person who doesn't know how to pronounce names like Trafalgar but it drives me crazy to listen to. It was pronounced as Tref - Fell - Gar.
You are talking non-sense FYI, those vert tubes were originally for ballistic missiles before they adapted it for cruise, so of course they can be readapted back to ballistic.
what everyone fails to see is Australia is co signed to non proliffiation treaty , non nukes, and also it has no nuke experience or technical trades / training for nuclear systems . and AI non manned subs are being massivly built by everyone now, so manned subs may be past there used by date , just as drones have taken over and will continue taking over missions , especially now with the f35 and its drone wings / swams etc. Also australia cant built a nuke boat or even a collins boat for that matter, the shipyard in SA is hopeless.and how are we to pay for these boats that the yanks cant build enopugh for themselves let alone australia.And who wants to go to war with china, they own most of australia anyway thanks to our treasonous governments over the last 20 years.
The Virginia's Australia will get will be the oldest the US has to offer. They will offload their old and less capable stock to Australia.
@@scotty311 naturally they will ,
@@scotty311 That doesn't appear to be the plan at this point of the 3 agreed to be purchased and transferred 2 a to be boats that will have at least 20 out of their 33 year life left and 1 will be a new build off the production line.
Sounds so fancy until you notice that the Yasen Class for the Russians and the Type 095 SSN and type 096 SSBN for the Chinese Submarine Fleet in significant numbers outpaces the American submarine manufacturing capabilities, the AUKUS deterrence variable seems to be a strawman's bravado at best. It will not deter squiddly squat to the Chinese and Russian Naval power porjection now and certainly well into the future.
What are you talking about? There are a whopping 3 Yasens in service, while twice that many Virginias are being built *right now*, plus 22 have been completed, and 21 are active.
And the Types 095 and 096 aren't even being built yet.
Don't need to deter, just be more quiet than they are. Then they wonder where you are and if you are right up their collective asses.
You don't need many adversaries when you can hear these subs when they depart the shipyard 👂
With all their current issues, the CCP and PRC may not be around tomorrow !
@@toolegittoquit_001Whose subs? The Russians and the Chinese? Or are you talking about the future AUKUS submarines?
talk about nuclear proliferation.. disgusting.
What proliferation? Reactors aren't weapons
Will it carry the SM-6? Did not see it here.
no.
The US and it’s pacific allies should consider diesel point defense subs.
@@justinzak5025 most "allied" submarines in the western pacific are diesel.
The new version of the Tomahawk will have land attack and a similar anti shipping capability to the LRASM albeit at double the LRASM range.
The LRASM has stealth and increased tactical awareness.
china can make this kind of submarine 10x as many and less than half the price. the problem is, it will only last for 1 to 2 year.
Another Western game changer!
Underwater LEOPARD tank!
U.S. Navy is weak!
Overfed and woke!