It's just a scam to get Australian tax payers to pay for Subs for the US Navy. These subs are going to be under the complete and direct command of the US.
@@buildmotosykletist1987😂 to do what? To sink Merchant ships caring Australian coal and iron from Australian ports on their way to China.🤣 What is going to happen to millions of Australian jobs if Australia gets into a war with China? What will happen to the Australian economy. Nevermind, Australian cities and people when the Chinese retaliates against Australia.
3:23 "But critics say that all this advanced technology could be obsolete by the time the SSN-AUKUS is actually deployed." That is equally true of the submarines of ... er ... other nations.
@@douglasnakamura6753 "Advancements in submarine detection have the potential to affect the survivability of submarines as nuclear delivery platforms. Submarine detection and monitoring was traditionally the exclusive domain of highly classified military units specializing in naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Military ASW employs technologies such as magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD), which detect tiny disturbances to Earth’s magnetic field caused by metallic submarine hulls, passive and active sonar sensors that use sound propagation to detect objects underwater, as well as radar and high-resolution satellite imagery to detect surfaced submarines. "
Eight countries will have nuclear submarines not seven. Brazil concluded a deal with France in 2008, they will have 2 nuclear submarines by the end of the 2030s.
@@studinthemaking 2032-2034 is the expected commission date for Brazil’s first nuclear submarine so about 11. Australia I think you meant will probably be 17 years away
Its important to note that the cost being quoted to Australia is roughly the same cost that the USN has quoted to Congress for our own Columbia-class nuclear subs. The implication here is that all this money is not _really_ for the subs themselves (which if the US simply sold them US-developed subs, would be a small fraction of the quoted price). It's the entire cost to setup the industry for Australia to build them on her own.
I agree. Nuclear powered vessels need maintenance and the infrastructure to do all that is expensive. Getting the Australians the wherewithal to run with this requires a lot of up-front investment, but in the long-run, it will be worth it for them. This is just the start for their new capabilities.
In deeper history, all three countries worked on the Manhattan Project. (Canada too?) America hosted and paid for the Project. Because the US did much of the heavy lifting, after the UK came-up with the preliminary design for the A-Bomb, Commonwealth countries agreed not to compete with the US into the 1950s on nuclear technologies. With the growth of the Soviet Union, though, the US agreed to share its nuclear submarine technologies with with the the UK and, now Australia. Australia decided not to develop nuclear weapons in 1960s. Australia could then, and, presumably, could still do so faster than Indonesia, the country of concern in that decade. Australia is very cautious in the use of nuclear technology, having only medical and research facilities. No nuclear power stations.
Yeah,nuclear is nothing new to australia,been around for years,the question of lacking know how is way off and ridiculous,some of our best nuclear scientists are in u.s because of the politician woke mentality.
I'm an Australian engineer (aerospace) who got his degree in America (late 80s). I work in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent most of the last 20 years in mining and resource projects because back in the early 2000s there was a genuine interest in mining the moon for Helium-3 and I went for the experience. What I got was some great experience in multi-billion dollar projects. So we are 100% clear I am 100% in favor of Australia having nuclear powered subs. A number of years ago I worked with an ex-USN nuclear power plant technician/operator. Is was around the time Australia was having its first discussions on what would follow on after Collins. The first thing said publicly was _"No nuclear."_ We were on a mining project and one night at diner it came up and he told all those interested some basic FACTS on naval operations in a global context and the difference between blue water and inshore operations. What I can tell everyone straight up is that AUKUS is the most ridiculous pile of over-hyped nonsense in the history of *BOTH* Australian engineering and Australian Military procurement and its got NOTHING to do with the subs themselves. You're all quite right a massive part of the expenditure is the construction of infrastructure and that's where every engineer I have discussed this with has ended up shaking their head in disbelief. Sorry of this next part is long winded, but these things need being said. For example we know that there has been assigned $4.3 Billion for a new Dry Dock in Perth. The last major mining project I was involved in was a $4 Billion dollar project that included: - a airport capable of handling small commercial jets and trub-props; AND - an accommodation village for 800 that included its own potable water treatment plant and sewerage treatment plant, mess halls, laundries, car parks, sports facilities, gymnasiums and bar; AND - a substation and high voltage power reticulation system; AND - a mine with a fleet of dump trucks, a new electric shovel and 2 refurbished drag lines; AND - a processing plant with crushers and all sorts of processing equipment; AND - a raw feed stockpile with its own stacker and reclaimer as well as a product stockpile system with 2 stackers and a reclaimer and the train load out system; AND - a 10km rail spur and loop so the trains could just roll in, keep rolling and leave without stopping; AND - a series of damns for handling run off water to limit discharge into nearby water ways. *BASICALLY A LOT OF STUFF.* The facility in Perth consists of (so far) a concrete lined hole with doors and some pumps. My bet is it also includes some cranes, workshops, water treatment facility, accommodation for visiting crews, accommodation for a permanent/semipermanent maintenance crews, probably a new wharf for subs to dock at, a substation to power it all as well as multiple emergency power systems to prevent any Fukushima type event. When I have raised this with other engineers we always end up asking _"What's the other $3 Billion for?"_ because none of us can see how this should cost $1 Billion let alone $4.3 Billion unless everything is gold plated. When we have looked at the East Coast sub base we end up with similar questions. Our best guess is that _"Various People"_ have filed some extraordinary estimates. Remember every time anyone has asked how much these will cost per sub THERE IS NO ANSWER. This isn't just a military procurement issue either as most of the people I have discussed this with have seen numerous commercial projects like the Gorgon Gas plant which blew out by over $15 Billion or the BHP Revensthorpe Nickel project that tripled in costs, the NBN which has so far blown out by over $30 Billion, Snowy 2.0 which has gone from $4 to over $12 Billion or any of the other numerous infrastructure projects that have blown out. Lets also not forget the Hunter Class Frigates have just jumped from $30 to $45 billion without explanation or how the replacements for the Armidale class patrol boats, the Arafura Class are each at $300 Million more than 10 times the cost of each Armidale ($24-28M). Australia has a massive issue with the management of engineering projects and its doesn't matter if its government, private industry or military. Its not so much the engineers but the people managing them and a lot of us who are tired of it. Sorry for the rant.
@@SL-jn8cz that’s the final and desperate last forces. Emus reduce the fighting power of any fighting force they encounter. Aussies better pray the emus don’t turn towards them when unleashed
Meanwhile I had read something that said that China is putting out the equivalent of Frances complete Navy every two or four years. So who is escalating?
The selfish West can only advise China or anyone else, for that matter, on what the selfish West practices. And "self-criticism" is not something the selfish West practices very often!
Mark these words : These subs will never be built. What is remarkable is that the US managed to convince Australia they can have nuclear subs without mastering civil nuclear engineering. It is already hard for countries like USA, UK and France to maintain these capacities considering they have decades of experience in the field and the cutting edge technologies.
Australia is currently training people in the necessary fields to operate and maintain nuclear power, also training on nuclear submarines started 18 months ago, using U.K. and U.S. submarines, which are now operating out of Australian bases, you only need to look at a map to see why Australia is important to the U.S. in maintaining peace in the Indian ocean and the Pacific ocean, 😊
US does not maintain peace it brought war, aggression and economic disaster. Lost every war it started in Pacific and middle east think Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Middle east and of course the Afghanistan debacle.
Australia is a key US ally. It has location, size, infrastructure and considerable natural resources and a reliable pro western govt. The US needs Britain as a forward base in Europe permanently and it needs Canada for obvious geographical reasons as well as resources .No other US allies are indispensable.
Training sailors isn't the problem. The sailors getting traing now be more likely be just officers not so much sailors as majority of thoughs sailors won't be there when the nuclear powerd submarine enter service with the RAN. Traing crew to oporate nuclear powerd submarines isn't the issue. It be more so on the maintance side. That will be the crew who will be building and maintaining the submarines that is with the ship builders. Major training with sailors will.more likely happen 2 to 3 years prior getting the submarines. Training sailors now would be just a waist of time and money and 90% of them won't ever see a nuclear powerd submarine. They will do there 6 to 10 years and retire. 2032/2033 is a whole decade away. It be more likely offerers and necessary ship builder staff that will be trained on them. To prepare to maintain and oporate the submarines and teach the future crew and builders you won't train some sailors who will only serve 6 years. Some sailors will serve 20 years but most don't. So if you train to early it becomes a waist of time. It takes 10 years to be qualified on a nuclear powerd submarine. So it be important for officers and ship builders to be fully qualified not so much sailors that can start learning a few years prior operating it. Australia has two major issues. One getting enough sailors to oporate it. Not many people like to become submariners stuck in isolation out at sea for months. The second issue Australia ship builders don't have enough qualified staff. They have problems finding enough welders. And because the submarines will be of limited to foreigners for security reasons. It will be hard to get qualified workers on the program. There's no guarantees AUKUS will work. They had problems getting the Collins class conventional powerd submarines in full deployment. Now they took on a more complicated system that requires even more staff and training it be even worse. I don't see it happening. And RAN will wasite time and further delays and stuck with needing the UK to build the entire submarines as Australia will be too short staffed. Australia at best will get a maintenance crew. But as far as building them. I doubt it will happen
You're gonna need a lot more than a couple of subs and a lot sooner than 20 years in the future to have even a remote chance of not losing to China and Russia...
Actually you are wrong, it takes years to get a nuclear reactor up and running and as to your innane comment about the building of subs, other countries, indlucing, but NOT limited to, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Sweden..AND Australia all build a dam good sub. It is about a bit more than these considerations but particularly about NUCLEAR subs, in which, IF you had stated THAT, you would have been 68% correct.@cjjk9142
Australia has approximately 0 knowledge about nuclear reactor compared to France, Russia, uk and the US. Just remember that Niger is a big exporter of Uranium but I don’t remember seeing a single nuclear plant on their soil.
There's a certain irony in China "angrily" pointing fingers when it refuses to be bound by any strategic arms limitation treaties. "Rules for thee but not for me!"
The strategic arms limitation treaty was strictly signed by the US and Russia. China is not bound or obliged to follow this treay. It has signed the Non Proliferation Treaty though which is what it follows.
Taiwan can easily control a fleet of unmanned sub-drones to destroy every invading Chinese ship/submarine in the South China sea. This is asymmetrical war that advantages the defender. Ships are expensive, drones are cheap.
@@fixpacifica If Taiwan tried to stand up a program like this and China found out about it, China would immediately initiate a full blown invasion, because it might not be possible in the future, so they'd need to try now. That's why its a bad idea. Go look at the Taiwanese military. Its woefully under prepared to repel a Chinese invasion, which is Taiwan's only real geostrategic threat. Taiwan knows this, and have done it on purpose. If China thinks it can succeed in 10 years, it'll wait 10 years. Which is 10 more years of peace and time to come up with other ways to deter an invasion attempt.
For all we know Australia could very well develop its own set of underwater "Loyal Wingmen" drones to expand the capability of these vessels, and for use by the alliance. Theres already the aerial drone Loyal Wingman project thats in existence
Underwater communication is ludicrously difficult and even with the most advanced systems we have only can communicate about 20km at most. This is further reduced when other noises like cargo ships or even ice creaking near the ice caps create a blanket of noise. Radio on subs for underwater communication is at most 7km and that is only possible when conditions are right. Most subs cannot actively communicate with each other unless they are extremely close making pre planned routes and automated systems the only way for drones to function.
There is a caveat with nuclear submarines being quieter. They’re quieter with overall running, but the diesel engines in conventional powered subs are generators to large batteries. They can switch to silent running mode with the diesel engines off. During this time, a convention powered sub is more silent and stealthy than a nuclear sub, because a nuclear power sub cannot similarly turn its reactor off to achieve the same result. Both Sweden and Australia have used this to their advantage when going against the US in military exercises. Both countries have scored major US carrier defeats having gone completely undetected (albeit also extremely slow and on battery power only at the time).
Yeah, unfortunately it's not that simple. Those SSK exercises were conducted in unrealistic scenarios. Namely, they knew where the target was & said target was either anchored or limited to 5 kt. SSK's can't catch up to anyone. So in a shooting war, if you're a capital ship, unless you run over them, they're harmless.
@@georgesikimeti2184 i have been searching all over...high and low...everywhere and anywhere for this info. It made no sense for the US to be going all out with the Virginia class if all these diesel electric boats could operate silently and not be detected. The US Navy rented a Swedish boat for an extended period of time and I thought they must have found something but you can't find this information open source...so thanks.
Only America and Israel have nuclear doctrine of first strike, India, Pakistan, UK, France, China and Russia all have a defensive doctrine of retaliation Biden changed US nuclear policy in October 2022 go and fact-check me
Ok watching this they say that Nuclear subs are faster, farther, and they are quieter, though a friend of mine who works on a submarine for a living says the Nuclear are larger, faster, and never need resupply other than for the crew, but they are NOT quieter. I didn't want to contradict a expert till a went back to watch the scene again and its a reporter who said it... So again, Diesel is quieter, but that is the only advantage other than being cheaper.
Diesel is only quiter if they are in what experts call a silent drive mode. This mode is when they completely turn their main diesel engines off and run off of batteries or fuel cell. This silent mode can be achieved for days on end using modern AIP propulsion systems, but the drawback is incredibly reduced speed. Diesel subs are already known for being slower than their nuclear counterparts when using full power. The US Seawolf class design, a late cold war sub is believed to have a top speed around 35kts. The fastest diesel subs go around 22kts and with silent drive activated they can't top 5kts. Basically, diesel subs have to be in the perfect position to successfully intradict any modern naval force, and there honestly not that much cheaper. Virginias can be pumped out at around 3 billion, whereas diesels cost roughly one-third. Another important aspect that the video didn't touch on is Australian investment in the US industrial base. With Australian money coming in to boost production, the US can get to its goal of producing 2 of the most advanced submarines in the world every year.
@@georgesikimeti2184 I'm not sure if I understand your question so apologies if I misunderstood you but only diesel electric boats run on batteries or AIP etc whilst submerged. Nuclear boats rely on steam driving a turbine regardless if submerged or surfaced.
The Chinese military spokesman accuses the US, UK, and Australia of being in an "Anglo-Saxon cabal." Firstly, the word cabal depends upon secrecy and conspiracy. This is just a public alliance, but I suppose it's easy for a country with so few friends to get that confused. Secondly, Russia and China seem to weirdly love using "Anglo-Saxon" as a descriptor. Probably to downplay how actually heterogenous the West actually is
we already use US systems and torpedo's in our collins class. Here is the problem with us getting nuclear submarines and that is we can't operate them. We don't have the personnel or the technical capability to operate these subs because we have lost the ability to manufacture. Having a larger hull is also not good for the area to the north of Australia as it is shallow and the larger subs are easier to detect.
AUSTRALIA doesn't even need those NUCLEAR SUBS, those Subs are designed for attack, US will lure AUSTRALIA into this war against CHINA frenzy, without any necessity... That's scary 😂
The Astute class of the Royal Navy is notably very stealthy, helped by its very small build and modern design compared to the slightly older Seawolf/Virginia's. Pair its successor design with US nuclear reactors which are generally quieter and safer than their UK counterparts, and you get a really stealthy boat.
I think part of the incredibly extended build phase of these subs is that a lot of the manufacture will be done in Australia, so that the maintenance can be done there too.
20 years ago my similar drone lookalike was a RC toy car able to go 8KPH, drive on any terrian including dirt, and battery lasted 1 hour. Now? Look how far we've gotten. Still can't beat my RC toy car.
What is the need for Canada to possess and operate nuclear powered submarines ? Diesel ones are far more quieter when needed, and suffice to protect your borders.
@@stitch77100 Canada is bordered by three oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. Diesel electrics are very poor vessels to patrol Canada’s arctic, whereas nuclear submarines could stay on station as for long as the food holds out.
@@stitch77100you can’t operate diesel subs under the polar ice. Conventional subs are only near ice edge capable. We should have continued with the nuclear powered sub project that we started in 1988 under the Mulroney government. We were to buy 10 to 12 Trafalgar class British subs at that time.
@@GuyWilson706 The UKs main push to leave the EU was over immigration. The UK complain about the immigration problem Well, I suppose if you had not decided to conquer the world and exploit it you would not now be suffering the consequences.
Nuclear submarines are generally quieter? I wouldn't say that. Also the US has shared its submarine technology before. Like they did with Sweden in the 60's when the two countries collaborated and worked together when Sweden was producing their own nuclear submarines.
@@georgesikimeti2184 You’d be surprised that Sweden was close to becoming the 4th country in the world with nuclear bombs, but the US essentially forced them to drop their development of nuclear arms. And in 1957 they started the A-11 program for development of nuclear submarines. So yes, they almost had nuclear subs and the US we’re heavily involved in their development since both countries shared their experiences.
@@georgesikimeti2184 Exactly, but that was also the point for their development of nuclear arms. To make the Soviets and any other potential threat think twice before attacking a nuclear armed Sweden! Very interesting indeed.
Nuclear subs are definitely quieter in most situation, electric-diesel subs are only quiet in electric mode with very limited operational range and endurance. When the battery needs to be charged by diesel engines, it's so much noisier.
Given the cost of these submarines - its not only unmanned and underwater drones, but also drones much smaller in scale, undetectable to its radar can stick itself onto these vessels and give out their positions, no?
Two nuclear weapons states critical of a ceiled power reactor? Australia could have become a nuclear power in the 1960s, yet chose not to take that action.
However, Australia built, and detonated 4 (two for the British, and two for Australia, ) nuclear weapons in maralinga in 1947, we supplied the uranium and build around centrifuges to separate the heavier element We chose not to continue down this path
@@aussiet5817 Australia didn't build the bombs did they ? It was Australian army engineers who constructed the facilities and the bomb towers and other infrastructure but is there any evidence Australian military or scientific personnel were involved in the construction or use of the weapons ? I thought I had read that the Brits didn't share any nuclear secrets with Australia.
Australia currently operates a Nuclear Power plant so the notion of nuclear proliferation is a myth especially when you consider that they are not receiving nuclear weapons.
Aukus for GoodLife healthy future generations thank you all aukus protecting all people in the Australian country big 💓 special forces strong support for everyone future generations
@@LeonAustseems unlikely, why would you transport pieces of a vehicle halfway across the globe, to assemble it there, instead of just assemble it and make it travel where it needs to go ? What would be the added value of Australia in this organisation ?
I think you fail to understand it is mandatory that Australia will be self reliant on most aspects of this project, not all but most. It's still in the design phase so the value added is yet to be determined. Britain doesn't have the capability or the trained up manpower to produce the current SSBN replacements and all of AUKUS submarines thats why valve added will be within the Australian manufacturing capability. People will still have to be trained and it will be Australians for the Australian submarines, not the British. It will be written in law, one has to look at the F-35 as its assembled in Japan, Italy, United States, where is the value added in that? why? its because its defence not some car manufacturing plant. When it comes to defence, self reliance is a capability that will be a point of issue. Another reason is that the AUKUS submarines will be manufactured in Australia with a continuous manufacturing line, advancing to a future design after AUKUS. The old stop and start manufacturing will change.@@stitch77100
Nuke subs are not as quiet as conventional when latter runs on electric. Conventional boats better for South China sea due to shallowness. Australia need a mixed fleet of both Nuke and conventional boats. Interoperability is BS. It's all about profit for USA industrial complex. The 3 coutries have always worked well as allies in the past with different rechnologies. Better off getting LEU boats from France which don't need specialist shore facilities
Time on station for a large Collins conventional sub in the South China Sea is around only 8 days, time on station for a nuke comes down to how much food you have which is around 80 days. South China Sea is not shallow like the Baltic, there is plenty of room to operate in that sea and that's if they choose to operate due to upcoming drone subs. A nuke would be perfect for a drone sub hub. Current nuclear subs are very quiet it's not like the old days, and the AUKUS sub will be the quietest nuclear submarine up to that period, surpassing conventional subs. (currently under design at BAE). Australia has a defence force that cannot reach out and touch an enemy its been set up for defence, yet our adversary's can touch us. And a part of deterrence is to attack the enemy's home base and hurt him at home where it counts, the nukes VLS systems give it that capability with Tomahawk cruise missiles or its future replacement. One cannot win a boxing match with just defending.
they had these subs far way back in the 80s where countries are still fighting conventional war. I doubted if this technology will be useful in 20 yrs time. Drone and Unmanned Subs will be the way to go.
@@426dfv At the risk of repeating myself you obviously know very little about this field - control of unmanned submersibles is very difficult - radio waves penetrate only around 7km. Effective control of the kill chain is limited so "man in the loop" control will still be needed until AI technology has advanced significantly. The AUKUS boats will be a new design - even the Astute class boats are 1990s technology so are beyond your "80s tech" explanation.
China already is in an arms race against the US, so it's an empty statement. China is alarmed since Aussie can then stalk their own nuke subs & beat their diesel ones in stamina. Nuke subs won't be obsolete in the future, it is rather the future since it can supply sufficient electricity for drones & controling them, fitting as drone motherships. Aussie then better make them bigger (metal & nuke fuel are cheap anyway) to fit more/bigger drones & add-on drone-suppport equipment in the future
China's defence spending is only 1.3% of GDP, US is at 3.9%, there is no arms race, there is only US struggling to keep up with China at walking pace. And China's already exporting drone subs with fully autonomous kill authority, and Australia's hoping to get their first Virginia in the 2040s (narrator: the project will be cancelled in the 2030s)
I'm now finding out Richard Males is neutering these subs and the deal, as for the Virginia class nil not one sub will have the Virginia Payload Module vastly reducing the Vertical Launch Silos (VLS) thus land attack (Tomahawk) capability. The Australian version of the AUKUS class submarine will not have a similar Virginia Payload Module arrangement, it will have just a few VLS tubes (this VPM capability was offered to Australia by the USA and Richard Marles rejected it!).......................this guy is China's best friend! AUKUS SSN is a chance for Australia to have a real offensive attack capability of which many nations are obtaining, and we get the chance to create a land attack capability and what we get is not much better than other new conventional designs in the weapons capability!
Australia's continental waters are too shallow for submarines. We could set up bases on the continental shelf, but that would be at least a fair way off our coast
If China and Russia object then it must be a good idea. I will say I am annoyed at Sunak with his spineless decision to continue allowing Confucius institutes to continue operating in England. He ran as a China hawk and suddenly he turns into an appeasement mouse. I am so tired of these politicians never doing what they claim they will do.
This argument comes up a lot... But you guys do realise just because the enemy objects to the principle of what you are doing, doesn't automatically mean what you are doing isn't a complete waste of money.
@@903IDFOLEY Thats true, it could end badly but I think too much is at stake this time for the plan to fail. This deal is a good one in my opinion and should have been done long ago.
@@georgesikimeti2184 The Confucius institutes have nothing to do with communism. They are espionage centers set to steal IP, research, influence and recruit spies in universities. They are not what they appear. As for communism, think again, it has never worked ever in the history of man. Communism has killed tens of millions of people all over the world. Communism doesn't work, and anyone that thinks so needs to dig deeper.
When/if the nuclear subs arrive, it would be a clear violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty essentially requires nuclear weapon states who are a part of the treaty (US, UK, China, Russia and France) to not pass nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear weapons states.)
Such huge expenditure suggests new R&D, and, perhaps, further integration of the three countries’ defence industries. All three countries have specialist defence capabilities. The UK wants pivot to the Asia Pacific under Global Britain. The US doesn’t want the PRC on Taiwan projecting power beyond the First Island Chain. All three countries are very capable, and, more widely, link the straddle the globe.
@@petersinclair3997 Why is 50% of Australian imports from China if they hate China so much? Who is the subs protecting? China owned Australia from China?
Maybe the French are confused as we signed a contract with Naval group for Diesel submarines then after the contract was signed we demanded the submarine have the same capabilities as their nuclear variant and instead have a U.S. combat system The French were probably even more confused when we scrapped the deal in favour of a nuclear sub when the French could’ve just built us the Nuclear original variant of the submarine The French even told Albo we could have our silly AUKUS alliance and still get French subs at a far better price and better timeframe of construction
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 "confused"? Aiui, the French were supposed to adapt their nuclear-powered design to a diesel-powered design. Billions and years later with nothing to show for investment, and $2bn penalty later, they were miffed that the lucrative deal was cancelled without prior notification of Prima Donna Macron.
That'd be awkward. Australia literally reneged on its deal with France and went with the US/UK instead. What's funny is that France had initially offered nuclear subs to Australia but that was refused...
@@RK-bx1by Reneged? Australia just took advantange of an exit clause written into the contract. France outed themselves as a hostile foreign state by trying to milk the Aussies in the design phase and by their immature Gaelic hissy fit when the contract was cancelled.
@@douglasnakamura6753 If France is a hostile foreign state then I wonder what that makes the USA and UK? The Australian taxpayer is going to foot a massive bill because of this new deal (roughly A$300 billion over the life of the program, if the costs don't blow out further). All for what, eight submarines which won't all be operational at the same time due to maintenance, and be deployed to the South China Sea rather than closer to home? There's much talk of the submarines also not really contributing to the nuclear industry or lack thereof in Australia. China was also a threat when the original deal with France was signed. But hey, this is Australia's way of paying off the American protection racket.
@@RK-bx1by When was the French deal signed? around 2016. Australia was still on good terms by 2020 it became clear China was becoming a threat to the Australian Economy. 2016 Australian did not need SSN then. Also to maintain SSN over 30 years life every 10 years they need to be cut open to have their reactor replaces, which can only be done in France taking the sub out of action for up to 3 years. so 1/3 of their life spent in dock.
The Aukus alliance between these countries are welcomed by many in the indo pacific. These submarines are meant to maintain peace and open sea lanes. So countries can freely sail the seas and trade with the world.
150 billion a piece? either that number has been dramatically changed to hide the true numbers or someone read a price tag wrong, that is not possible, even with inflation.
It probably includes the entire lifetime cost of operating the submarine. Canada calculated the price per unit of its F-35 acquisition the same way, lifetime cost of $215M per fighter jet, upfront cost of $85M per fighter jet.
Nuclear submarines will never be built in Australia. These statements are just soothsaying to appease the unions. AUKUS is a British initiative intended to allow the UK to build nuclear subs for Australia. But the reality is eventually Australian nuclear subs will be built in America.
I doubt your opinion that ynions want them built in Australia more likely people with an inferiority complex with Australia being too dependent on other nations building their weapons
"... it has drawn criticism from Russia and China." *GOOD!* Honestly - *who gives a flying fk at the moon WHAT Russia and China think* but if they want to criticise it then fine! It won't change *anything*. Good on you, Australia! Good on you, UK and the US, for helping them with this!
Frankly speaking, I have to say that this group has no deterrent power. Simply put, it's not scary. In fact, I feel that America's finances and workload will continue to grow. And although Britain is good at information warfare, there is a strong impression that it is not good at actually fighting.
NATO nations make use of the tech of other NATO nations. Defence companies are multinationals. So a UK sub will include tech from the likes of the US, France, Canada, etc.
'Future subs'. SSN AUKUS. Australia will buy at least 3 USS Virginia as an interim, and is paying $3 billion to expand US sub-building capacity in US shipyards. Buying 'pre-owned' Block 4 Virginias will cost about $3 billion each and makes sense. Preferably 5, as that is all Australian will be able to crew, and with a 50 year service life means the proposed AUKUS subs are not required. Not the 8 'pie in the sky' not yet designed new AUKUS design built in Australia at probably an unaffordable $350 billion plus project cost, inevitably with huge cost and time over-runs. Plus also about $200m for planned upgrades at Osborn shipyard (maintenance and refit) and similar amounts to upgrade both Sub Fleet East and West bases. Currently Australia cannot even crew 6 Collins SS (only 4 actually in operational service) at 60 crew each - 1 captain is USN and 1 is Canadian Navy. Training the new crews with new nuclear tech specialists (and then retaining them) will be a real struggle even for 5 boats. The proposed 8 subs at 120 crew is simply not possible And when the AUKUS program is inevitably cancelled or scaled back the cost per unit will be even more ridiculous, and leave a capability gap that cannot then be filled.
All goes to the fact that Australia is becoming the new bargaining chip of the United States. Participation in this alliance does not bode well for our country. I hope the authorities come to their senses and get out of it.
The subs are not intended to defend Australia. The subs are intended to interdict Chinese maritime interests specifically in the Malacca and Taiwan straits - thousands of km from the Australian mainland. That makes it offensive, and in addition, its design interoperability would allow it the capability of hosting nuclear weapons. Its threat to China's maritime trade is likely to be countered with a strategic response from China, that could involve targeting its home base.
Australia is the only nation allowed to “breach” the non nuclear treaty, if you read it it states any nation that was apart of the original nuclear programs can develop, house and facilitate nuclear weapons and power without breaching their agreements, Australia was apart of those original programs the rest already have nukes.
@@angus1391it is not solely about defence of Taiwan it is about an armed military conflict around Taiwan. A blockade or conflict would reduce the availability of Chips in the world, it will destroy trade routes to Japan and South Korea and a conflict in the West Philippines sea will hurt trade to SEA. Note: Indian Ocean in the next few years is not going to be as quite as now. Iran is already stirring the pot. China is talking to Pakistan about ports and railways (avoid trade conflict zone) as Myanmar is broken right now.
What defence, along the shoreline of Australia? Canada is going to pay South Korea $50Billion for 12 SSK. The France SSK had blown out to $90Billion. How is that better to buy expensive, slow, short distance and low armed subs.
@@thomasb5600 Why do we need to be involved in an armed conflict around Taiwan? In what way are we strategically compromised? Why would we want to break open a blockade at risk of being framed as an aggressor when we realistically can sustain ourselves w/o trade in East Asia
@@angus1391 How do ships get to South Korea and Japan from Australia? Through the west Philippines sea right pass Taiwan. We are taking about the largest supplier of computer chips, not potato chips. That is a $14 billion trade to Australia. That so called can do without East Asia. Really! Sure taking $140 billion hit on trade to China will hurt but an $90 billion and impacts into SEA $130 billion. That's not including investments. I think protecting over $360 billion a year in trade is worth us getting involved even if it is to prevent a blockade or military action with diplomacy.
Due to the inevitable timeframe and cost blowouts to at least twice the original estimates , by the time these submarines are delivered they would be decades behind the latest submarines and other undersea weapons that are current as at their delivery dates!
@@aussiviking604 how’s it cope we aren’t getting the subs until at least 2040, we are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for a mystery sub that we won’t get for a few decades when we could’ve paid tens of billions for submarines right now from Japan or Germany
@Moses Goldbergshekelstien Due to our location and proximity to 3 major oceans. A shallow water short-range defensive class Submarine. Really does not suit our strategic needs... Also, the cost is not per unit costs, but the the total cost of setting up complete manufacturing in Australia. Time for next future. Get with the program.
With u.s submarine technology 20yrs ahead of anybody,the decision by Australia to aukus is a milestone especially the defensive capabilities of the us subs.,with due respect to the French,the u.s is a far superior stealthy weapon.
Austrialia may not have nuclear or chemical weapons, but their wildlife sure counts as a biological weapon! God help anyone if they load spiders onto any of those missiles...
I mean, why would you be talking seriously about a submarine that will come at least ten years later to counter China? God knows how many nuclear sub china would have built then. China's nuclear submarine shipyard expansion has finished and its size can guarantee 3 SSN+1 SSBN launched each year the least.
The general idea is that because they couldn't detect any Chinese submarines, China must have completely forgot submarines exist and why they built that new sub yard.
Most Australians don't even want these subs. But because the WSJ is pro neoliberalism, and so is Australia's duopoly of governments, we get this video.
@@TempleGuitars yeah, I'm gonna need a source on that. im assuming you pulled most of us dont want them out of your you know what. unless you are poking fun at the number of Chinese now here, saying it accounts to most of the population
Yet, within 10 years Australia will be operating at least 3 SSN Virgina Class subs. Fine China building 3 SSN a year in about 5 years, It is not Australia v China it will be AUKUS+ v China. Even Chinas rate that would need over 15 years of full capacity to get near the US fleet. Add the UK and Aus fleets you are looking at about 2040's before China has roughly the same number of SSN. This does not include replacement rates for China. AUKUS numbers will be increasing by about 10 SSN by that time as current US rates are replacement.
Aukus is also meant to be a trigger for broader projects between these three. Submarines is just the launch project.
It's just a scam to get Australian tax payers to pay for Subs for the US Navy.
These subs are going to be under the complete and direct command of the US.
Other projects like the SCRAMJET missiles are already underway.
Suspect JORN will be in the mix.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Believe that the University of Queensland were pioneers in scramjet technology. Peter S.
@@buildmotosykletist1987😂 to do what? To sink Merchant ships caring Australian coal and iron from Australian ports on their way to China.🤣
What is going to happen to millions of Australian jobs if Australia gets into a war with China?
What will happen to the Australian economy.
Nevermind, Australian cities and people when the Chinese retaliates against Australia.
3:23 "But critics say that all this advanced technology could be obsolete by the time the SSN-AUKUS is actually deployed." That is equally true of the submarines of ... er ... other nations.
Great point. Also, IMO if we become fixated on obsolescence, we stand still and that could be far worse.
It will deploy in 2100
Subs have a long build time, but don't start because they'll be outdated. Utter nonsense.
@@douglasnakamura6753 "Advancements in submarine detection have the potential to affect the survivability of submarines as nuclear delivery platforms. Submarine detection and monitoring was traditionally the exclusive domain of highly classified military units specializing in naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Military ASW employs technologies such as magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD), which detect tiny disturbances to Earth’s magnetic field caused by metallic submarine hulls, passive and active sonar sensors that use sound propagation to detect objects underwater, as well as radar and high-resolution satellite imagery to detect surfaced submarines. "
@@douglasnakamura6753 Read what I actually wrote.
Eight countries will have nuclear submarines not seven. Brazil concluded a deal with France in 2008, they will have 2 nuclear submarines by the end of the 2030s.
That up to 17 years away.
@@studinthemaking 2032-2034 is the expected commission date for Brazil’s first nuclear submarine so about 11. Australia I think you meant will probably be 17 years away
@@jeylonblake3407 I meant for both. No way either of those come in on time.
@@studinthemaking brasil first
Yeah but can Brazil afford to run it
Its important to note that the cost being quoted to Australia is roughly the same cost that the USN has quoted to Congress for our own Columbia-class nuclear subs. The implication here is that all this money is not _really_ for the subs themselves (which if the US simply sold them US-developed subs, would be a small fraction of the quoted price). It's the entire cost to setup the industry for Australia to build them on her own.
I agree. Nuclear powered vessels need maintenance and the infrastructure to do all that is expensive. Getting the Australians the wherewithal to run with this requires a lot of up-front investment, but in the long-run, it will be worth it for them. This is just the start for their new capabilities.
Yep, Australian Defence purchases tend to include establishment and sustainment costs, not just purchase price of the equipment.
In deeper history, all three countries worked on the Manhattan Project. (Canada too?) America hosted and paid for the Project. Because the US did much of the heavy lifting, after the UK came-up with the preliminary design for the A-Bomb, Commonwealth countries agreed not to compete with the US into the 1950s on nuclear technologies.
With the growth of the Soviet Union, though, the US agreed to share its nuclear submarine technologies with with the the UK and, now Australia.
Australia decided not to develop nuclear weapons in 1960s. Australia could then, and, presumably, could still do so faster than Indonesia, the country of concern in that decade. Australia is very cautious in the use of nuclear technology, having only medical and research facilities. No nuclear power stations.
Yeah,nuclear is nothing new to australia,been around for years,the question of lacking know how is way off and ridiculous,some of our best nuclear scientists are in u.s because of the politician woke mentality.
I'm an Australian engineer (aerospace) who got his degree in America (late 80s). I work in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent most of the last 20 years in mining and resource projects because back in the early 2000s there was a genuine interest in mining the moon for Helium-3 and I went for the experience. What I got was some great experience in multi-billion dollar projects.
So we are 100% clear I am 100% in favor of Australia having nuclear powered subs. A number of years ago I worked with an ex-USN nuclear power plant technician/operator. Is was around the time Australia was having its first discussions on what would follow on after Collins. The first thing said publicly was _"No nuclear."_ We were on a mining project and one night at diner it came up and he told all those interested some basic FACTS on naval operations in a global context and the difference between blue water and inshore operations.
What I can tell everyone straight up is that AUKUS is the most ridiculous pile of over-hyped nonsense in the history of *BOTH* Australian engineering and Australian Military procurement and its got NOTHING to do with the subs themselves. You're all quite right a massive part of the expenditure is the construction of infrastructure and that's where every engineer I have discussed this with has ended up shaking their head in disbelief.
Sorry of this next part is long winded, but these things need being said.
For example we know that there has been assigned $4.3 Billion for a new Dry Dock in Perth. The last major mining project I was involved in was a $4 Billion dollar project that included:
- a airport capable of handling small commercial jets and trub-props; AND
- an accommodation village for 800 that included its own potable water treatment plant and sewerage treatment plant, mess halls, laundries, car parks, sports facilities, gymnasiums and bar; AND
- a substation and high voltage power reticulation system; AND
- a mine with a fleet of dump trucks, a new electric shovel and 2 refurbished drag lines; AND
- a processing plant with crushers and all sorts of processing equipment; AND
- a raw feed stockpile with its own stacker and reclaimer as well as a product stockpile system with 2 stackers and a reclaimer and the train load out system; AND
- a 10km rail spur and loop so the trains could just roll in, keep rolling and leave without stopping; AND
- a series of damns for handling run off water to limit discharge into nearby water ways.
*BASICALLY A LOT OF STUFF.*
The facility in Perth consists of (so far) a concrete lined hole with doors and some pumps.
My bet is it also includes some cranes, workshops, water treatment facility, accommodation for visiting crews, accommodation for a permanent/semipermanent maintenance crews, probably a new wharf for subs to dock at, a substation to power it all as well as multiple emergency power systems to prevent any Fukushima type event.
When I have raised this with other engineers we always end up asking _"What's the other $3 Billion for?"_ because none of us can see how this should cost $1 Billion let alone $4.3 Billion unless everything is gold plated. When we have looked at the East Coast sub base we end up with similar questions.
Our best guess is that _"Various People"_ have filed some extraordinary estimates. Remember every time anyone has asked how much these will cost per sub THERE IS NO ANSWER.
This isn't just a military procurement issue either as most of the people I have discussed this with have seen numerous commercial projects like the Gorgon Gas plant which blew out by over $15 Billion or the BHP Revensthorpe Nickel project that tripled in costs, the NBN which has so far blown out by over $30 Billion, Snowy 2.0 which has gone from $4 to over $12 Billion or any of the other numerous infrastructure projects that have blown out. Lets also not forget the Hunter Class Frigates have just jumped from $30 to $45 billion without explanation or how the replacements for the Armidale class patrol boats, the Arafura Class are each at $300 Million more than 10 times the cost of each Armidale ($24-28M).
Australia has a massive issue with the management of engineering projects and its doesn't matter if its government, private industry or military. Its not so much the engineers but the people managing them and a lot of us who are tired of it.
Sorry for the rant.
UUVs are a great reason for nuclear subs, being a mothership that can recharge and direct them
These ships are welcome in the West Philippine Sea anytime.Go Aus!
a gosh submarine 🇺🇸 has sold to🦘🦘
china 🇨🇳 will have more sophisticated 🛸🛸🛸🛰🛰
@@999score Wumao alert!
Given some recent choices made by the Philippines the country might not make it to 2040
If China and Russia are unhappy about it, we must be doing the right thing. 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇬🇧
These countries want Trump back in. This will be the end of democracy
The aussie also has a secret army of kangaroos ready to fight.
🤫 that's a state secret mate
@@SL-jn8cz that’s the final and desperate last forces.
Emus reduce the fighting power of any fighting force they encounter.
Aussies better pray the emus don’t turn towards them when unleashed
u mean super kangaroo ?
We call them kangmandos
The Great Emu Wars.. look it up
Meanwhile I had read something that said that China is putting out the equivalent of Frances complete Navy every two or four years.
So who is escalating?
They don't have competent crew capable of running all the boats
@@proscreens2137 It’ll be like a “duck shoot” on a pond.
@@nzs316 basically a large coast guard
I don't think that would be true @@proscreens2137
China should do some "self-criticism" on its own military actions
China is the biggest hypocrite in the region (next to Russia) so whatever China says can be flushed down the toilet.
it is called free navigation
The selfish West can only advise China or anyone else, for that matter, on what the selfish West practices.
And "self-criticism" is not something the selfish West practices very often!
@@user-jq5wc2nf4l only for free people though not bad people we are good people
Why would China endanger its trading routes to its customer trading nations?
That China is an enemy of anybody is rubbish.
Mark these words : These subs will never be built.
What is remarkable is that the US managed to convince Australia they can have nuclear subs without mastering civil nuclear engineering.
It is already hard for countries like USA, UK and France to maintain these capacities considering they have decades of experience in the field and the cutting edge technologies.
Australia is currently training people in the necessary fields to operate and maintain nuclear power, also training on nuclear submarines started 18 months ago, using U.K. and U.S. submarines, which are now operating out of Australian bases, you only need to look at a map to see why Australia is important to the U.S. in maintaining peace in the Indian ocean and the Pacific ocean, 😊
US does not maintain peace it brought war, aggression and economic disaster. Lost every war it started in Pacific and middle east think Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Middle east and of course the Afghanistan debacle.
Linking US to peace is the biggest joke
Australia is a key US ally. It has location, size, infrastructure and considerable natural resources and a reliable pro western govt. The US needs Britain as a forward base in Europe permanently and it needs Canada for obvious geographical reasons as well as resources .No other US allies are indispensable.
@@xiaoqiangsun179??XIAO!
Training sailors isn't the problem. The sailors getting traing now be more likely be just officers not so much sailors as majority of thoughs sailors won't be there when the nuclear powerd submarine enter service with the RAN. Traing crew to oporate nuclear powerd submarines isn't the issue.
It be more so on the maintance side. That will be the crew who will be building and maintaining the submarines that is with the ship builders. Major training with sailors will.more likely happen 2 to 3 years prior getting the submarines. Training sailors now would be just a waist of time and money and 90% of them won't ever see a nuclear powerd submarine. They will do there 6 to 10 years and retire.
2032/2033 is a whole decade away. It be more likely offerers and necessary ship builder staff that will be trained on them. To prepare to maintain and oporate the submarines and teach the future crew and builders you won't train some sailors who will only serve 6 years. Some sailors will serve 20 years but most don't. So if you train to early it becomes a waist of time. It takes 10 years to be qualified on a nuclear powerd submarine. So it be important for officers and ship builders to be fully qualified not so much sailors that can start learning a few years prior operating it.
Australia has two major issues. One getting enough sailors to oporate it. Not many people like to become submariners stuck in isolation out at sea for months. The second issue Australia ship builders don't have enough qualified staff. They have problems finding enough welders. And because the submarines will be of limited to foreigners for security reasons. It will be hard to get qualified workers on the program.
There's no guarantees AUKUS will work. They had problems getting the Collins class conventional powerd submarines in full deployment. Now they took on a more complicated system that requires even more staff and training it be even worse. I don't see it happening. And RAN will wasite time and further delays and stuck with needing the UK to build the entire submarines as Australia will be too short staffed. Australia at best will get a maintenance crew. But as far as building them. I doubt it will happen
Of course China and Russia don't agree. When did a bully ever agree on losing. 😅
The bully is the US. Australia is the hostage.
You're gonna need a lot more than a couple of subs and a lot sooner than 20 years in the future to have even a remote chance of not losing to China and Russia...
I think you mistaking China with Usa
@@vlhc4642 Wumao alert!
@@vlhc4642 have you not checked the news on ukr v rus? kinda looks like rus would get rolled
Australia already has uranium enrichment technology and currently has the top 5 uranium producing mines in the world.
Actually you are wrong, it takes years to get a nuclear reactor up and running and as to your innane comment about the building of subs, other countries, indlucing, but NOT limited to, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Sweden..AND Australia all build a dam good sub. It is about a bit more than these considerations but particularly about NUCLEAR subs, in which, IF you had stated THAT, you would have been 68% correct.@cjjk9142
Australia has approximately 0 knowledge about nuclear reactor compared to France, Russia, uk and the US. Just remember that Niger is a big exporter of Uranium but I don’t remember seeing a single nuclear plant on their soil.
@@ptranchand52 TOTA::Y Incorrect! Auatralia has been running a reactor for YEARS and was also heavily inolved in the industry some time ago.
There's a certain irony in China "angrily" pointing fingers when it refuses to be bound by any strategic arms limitation treaties. "Rules for thee but not for me!"
Is the US signatory to icc or laws of the sea?
So you notice as well that "peaceful" and "lawful" are seldom, if at all, used to describe the godless communists. Spot on observation.
North Korea is free to develop nuclear arms. Why should this american lackey be allowed to have it and North Korea is not allowed to?
The strategic arms limitation treaty was strictly signed by the US and Russia. China is not bound or obliged to follow this treay. It has signed the Non Proliferation Treaty though which is what it follows.
Our military stores nukes in Australia so we can nuke china from there…
Taiwan can easily control a fleet of unmanned sub-drones to destroy every invading Chinese ship/submarine in the South China sea.
This is asymmetrical war that advantages the defender. Ships are expensive, drones are cheap.
That's not a bad idea.
@@fixpacifica If Taiwan tried to stand up a program like this and China found out about it, China would immediately initiate a full blown invasion, because it might not be possible in the future, so they'd need to try now. That's why its a bad idea. Go look at the Taiwanese military. Its woefully under prepared to repel a Chinese invasion, which is Taiwan's only real geostrategic threat. Taiwan knows this, and have done it on purpose. If China thinks it can succeed in 10 years, it'll wait 10 years. Which is 10 more years of peace and time to come up with other ways to deter an invasion attempt.
No such thing yet!
There is NO SUCH THING. 🙄🙄🙄
For all we know Australia could very well develop its own set of underwater "Loyal Wingmen" drones to expand the capability of these vessels, and for use by the alliance. Theres already the aerial drone Loyal Wingman project thats in existence
Underwater communication is ludicrously difficult and even with the most advanced systems we have only can communicate about 20km at most. This is further reduced when other noises like cargo ships or even ice creaking near the ice caps create a blanket of noise. Radio on subs for underwater communication is at most 7km and that is only possible when conditions are right. Most subs cannot actively communicate with each other unless they are extremely close making pre planned routes and automated systems the only way for drones to function.
Loyal Finman?
They already have, it's called the Ghost Shark.
🙄🙄🙄
There is a caveat with nuclear submarines being quieter. They’re quieter with overall running, but the diesel engines in conventional powered subs are generators to large batteries. They can switch to silent running mode with the diesel engines off. During this time, a convention powered sub is more silent and stealthy than a nuclear sub, because a nuclear power sub cannot similarly turn its reactor off to achieve the same result.
Both Sweden and Australia have used this to their advantage when going against the US in military exercises. Both countries have scored major US carrier defeats having gone completely undetected (albeit also extremely slow and on battery power only at the time).
latest sonar tech.(classified) can now pick up that signal/pulse since then.
@@georgesikimeti2184 but large nuke boats cannot sit in the bottom and are no good in the shallows
Yeah, unfortunately it's not that simple. Those SSK exercises were conducted in unrealistic scenarios. Namely, they knew where the target was & said target was either anchored or limited to 5 kt. SSK's can't catch up to anyone. So in a shooting war, if you're a capital ship, unless you run over them, they're harmless.
@@alanbstard4 i thought the Virginia class were made to operate in close to shore? Yes? No?
@@georgesikimeti2184 i have been searching all over...high and low...everywhere and anywhere for this info. It made no sense for the US to be going all out with the Virginia class if all these diesel electric boats could operate silently and not be detected. The US Navy rented a Swedish boat for an extended period of time and I thought they must have found something but you can't find this information open source...so thanks.
2040s. Nice. Stable income for military companies for long term shareholder value.
So long as they don't actually go to war with China before 2040, and it's only 2023
Are you sure it is not 4020?
If Russia and China are so concerned about a nuclear arms race, maybe they shouldn't be threatening nuclear war every month.
Only America and Israel have nuclear doctrine of first strike, India, Pakistan, UK, France, China and Russia all have a defensive doctrine of retaliation
Biden changed US nuclear policy in October 2022 go and fact-check me
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520no!!
They should dam North Korea as well, especially given that they cannot feed themselves.
Make the documentaries longer!
China has designs on the western pacific just as the Japanese did in the 20th century. We all know how that worked out.
You can imagine using standardised weapons will allow reduced costs
So why are we to pay 370 billion for 8 subs, when the USN pays only 1.7 billion for each of it's subs?
and no sovereignty
I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Don't go cheap.
and , by the way , in 15 or 20 years obtain subs ? and they are obsolete already ?
Ok watching this they say that Nuclear subs are faster, farther, and they are quieter, though a friend of mine who works on a submarine for a living says the Nuclear are larger, faster, and never need resupply other than for the crew, but they are NOT quieter. I didn't want to contradict a expert till a went back to watch the scene again and its a reporter who said it... So again, Diesel is quieter, but that is the only advantage other than being cheaper.
Diesel is only quiter if they are in what experts call a silent drive mode. This mode is when they completely turn their main diesel engines off and run off of batteries or fuel cell. This silent mode can be achieved for days on end using modern AIP propulsion systems, but the drawback is incredibly reduced speed. Diesel subs are already known for being slower than their nuclear counterparts when using full power. The US Seawolf class design, a late cold war sub is believed to have a top speed around 35kts. The fastest diesel subs go around 22kts and with silent drive activated they can't top 5kts. Basically, diesel subs have to be in the perfect position to successfully intradict any modern naval force, and there honestly not that much cheaper. Virginias can be pumped out at around 3 billion, whereas diesels cost roughly one-third. Another important aspect that the video didn't touch on is Australian investment in the US industrial base. With Australian money coming in to boost production, the US can get to its goal of producing 2 of the most advanced submarines in the world every year.
@@kyleshirley80what exactly is the source of the noise as both versions run on batteries while under water?perhaps the propulsion system?
@@georgesikimeti2184 I'm not sure if I understand your question so apologies if I misunderstood you but only diesel electric boats run on batteries or AIP etc whilst submerged. Nuclear boats rely on steam driving a turbine regardless if submerged or surfaced.
Teach your kids, if they want a stable job, work in the arms industries
apparently to be a nuclear submariner you need a degree in nuclear physics or engineer.
The Chinese military spokesman accuses the US, UK, and Australia of being in an "Anglo-Saxon cabal." Firstly, the word cabal depends upon secrecy and conspiracy. This is just a public alliance, but I suppose it's easy for a country with so few friends to get that confused. Secondly, Russia and China seem to weirdly love using "Anglo-Saxon" as a descriptor. Probably to downplay how actually heterogenous the West actually is
we already use US systems and torpedo's in our collins class. Here is the problem with us getting nuclear submarines and that is we can't operate them. We don't have the personnel or the technical capability to operate these subs because we have lost the ability to manufacture. Having a larger hull is also not good for the area to the north of Australia as it is shallow and the larger subs are easier to detect.
it will be a more stealthy shaped hull with better acoustic plates.
Think the Brits have special capacities in stealth submarine tiles. Australia? Over the horizon radar.
AUSTRALIA doesn't even need those NUCLEAR SUBS, those Subs are designed for attack, US will lure AUSTRALIA into this war against CHINA frenzy, without any necessity...
That's scary 😂
The Astute class of the Royal Navy is notably very stealthy, helped by its very small build and modern design compared to the slightly older Seawolf/Virginia's.
Pair its successor design with US nuclear reactors which are generally quieter and safer than their UK counterparts, and you get a really stealthy boat.
I think part of the incredibly extended build phase of these subs is that a lot of the manufacture will be done in Australia, so that the maintenance can be done there too.
20 years ago my similar drone lookalike was a RC toy car able to go 8KPH, drive on any terrian including dirt, and battery lasted 1 hour. Now? Look how far we've gotten. Still can't beat my RC toy car.
Canada should join the same program to replace their own diesel electric submarines, which happen to be old Cold War relics.
You have America as a neighbour that’s deterrent enough!!
As soon as Trudeau is thrown out of power, Canada will join the SSN programme.
What is the need for Canada to possess and operate nuclear powered submarines ? Diesel ones are far more quieter when needed, and suffice to protect your borders.
@@stitch77100 Canada is bordered by three oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. Diesel electrics are very poor vessels to patrol Canada’s arctic, whereas nuclear submarines could stay on station as for long as the food holds out.
@@stitch77100you can’t operate diesel subs under the polar ice. Conventional subs are only near ice edge capable. We should have continued with the nuclear powered sub project that we started in 1988 under the Mulroney government. We were to buy 10 to 12 Trafalgar class British subs at that time.
The USA and the UK are Doomed to Fail. Always do.
Straight talking, straight forward.
Ex ADF
How so my fine Aussie?
@@GuyWilson706 The UKs main push to leave the EU was over immigration. The UK complain about the immigration problem Well, I suppose if you had not decided to conquer the world and exploit it you would not now be suffering the consequences.
@@thespartan8476Why don't you get off Aboriginal land then, you convict?
Nuclear submarines are generally quieter? I wouldn't say that. Also the US has shared its submarine technology before. Like they did with Sweden in the 60's when the two countries collaborated and worked together when Sweden was producing their own nuclear submarines.
Sweden nuclear submarine? don’t think so!
@@georgesikimeti2184 You’d be surprised that Sweden was close to becoming the 4th country in the world with nuclear bombs, but the US essentially forced them to drop their development of nuclear arms. And in 1957 they started the A-11 program for development of nuclear submarines. So yes, they almost had nuclear subs and the US we’re heavily involved in their development since both countries shared their experiences.
@@Sniff420thanks for info,Sweden being neutral surprised me!
@@georgesikimeti2184 Exactly, but that was also the point for their development of nuclear arms. To make the Soviets and any other potential threat think twice before attacking a nuclear armed Sweden! Very interesting indeed.
Nuclear subs are definitely quieter in most situation, electric-diesel subs are only quiet in electric mode with very limited operational range and endurance. When the battery needs to be charged by diesel engines, it's so much noisier.
I'm Australian. We.already have submarines. Rare for such a small country.
You'd think we had money to burn. What a waste
You have nothing like these subs. They will protect your country from being kicked in the face by China.
2:40 He looks like Tom Scott but Chinese 😂
Looks nothing like him.
sweden is a proud partner to aukus and Australia has ordered 702 firing ramps for surface ships. This will strengthen the navy even more
Good on Australia 🇦🇺.
Given the cost of these submarines - its not only unmanned and underwater drones, but also drones much smaller in scale, undetectable to its radar can stick itself onto these vessels and give out their positions, no?
Two nuclear weapons states critical of a ceiled power reactor? Australia could have become a nuclear power in the 1960s, yet chose not to take that action.
However, Australia built, and detonated 4 (two for the British, and two for Australia, ) nuclear weapons in maralinga in 1947, we supplied the uranium and build around centrifuges to separate the heavier element
We chose not to continue down this path
@@aussiet5817 Australia didn't build the bombs did they ? It was Australian army engineers who constructed the facilities and the bomb towers and other infrastructure but is there any evidence Australian military or scientific personnel were involved in the construction or use of the weapons ? I thought I had read that the Brits didn't share any nuclear secrets with Australia.
Australia currently operates a Nuclear Power plant so the notion of nuclear proliferation is a myth especially when you consider that they are not receiving nuclear weapons.
@@aussiet5817 Australia currently has the technology to build bombs look up SILEX
Interesting to see Australia's MIC building up
For Russia and China to claim this will start an arms race is hypocritical in the extreme since both have been building up their militaries for years
No it’s not
australia has a population of a city in China
To be deployed in the 2040’s … my question is how Australia is going to maintain any subs operational readiness with their old Collins until then ?
Probably have older gen’s leased to them for training and exercises in the meantime?
Brandon getting things done👍
Hypersonics were first made practical and demonstrated by the Australian University of Queensland.
Yes I heard that and the plans given to DARPA.
The number 1 priority of any government is to defend its people and way of life - no matter what the cost.
Spoken like a true Realist, brother
then why are we paying this money to defend a global economic system which is our enemy?
By spending our lives and wealth containing China in the south China seas with a flawed plan?
Aukus for GoodLife healthy future generations thank you all aukus protecting all people in the Australian country big 💓 special forces strong support for everyone future generations
"Its being built in Australia"
...and the uk, likely building more in the uk as well
Reactor in the UK, with componentes from US and UK but the subs will be assembled in Australia.
@@LeonAustseems unlikely, why would you transport pieces of a vehicle halfway across the globe, to assemble it there, instead of just assemble it and make it travel where it needs to go ?
What would be the added value of Australia in this organisation ?
I think you fail to understand it is mandatory that Australia will be self reliant on most aspects of this project, not all but most.
It's still in the design phase so the value added is yet to be determined.
Britain doesn't have the capability or the trained up manpower to produce the current SSBN replacements and all of AUKUS submarines thats why valve added will be within the Australian manufacturing capability.
People will still have to be trained and it will be Australians for the Australian submarines, not the British.
It will be written in law, one has to look at the F-35 as its assembled in Japan, Italy, United States, where is the value added in that? why? its because its defence not some car manufacturing plant.
When it comes to defence, self reliance is a capability that will be a point of issue.
Another reason is that the AUKUS submarines will be manufactured in Australia with a continuous manufacturing line, advancing to a future design after AUKUS.
The old stop and start manufacturing will change.@@stitch77100
China afraid of Australia getting a couple new submarines. China also having atleast 10 times the ampunt of warships and 100 times the population
The United Kingdom and Australia 🇦🇺 this is the flag we the people need to watch out for.
Wumao alert!
Nuke subs are not as quiet as conventional when latter runs on electric. Conventional boats better for South China sea due to shallowness. Australia need a mixed fleet of both Nuke and conventional boats. Interoperability is BS. It's all about profit for USA industrial complex. The 3 coutries have always worked well as allies in the past with different rechnologies. Better off getting LEU boats from France which don't need specialist shore facilities
ok Admiral Nelson. ......................the seaview is an awesome sub by the way.
I'm right though@@LeonAust
Time on station for a large Collins conventional sub in the South China Sea is around only 8 days, time on station for a nuke comes down to how much food you have which is around 80 days.
South China Sea is not shallow like the Baltic, there is plenty of room to operate in that sea and that's if they choose to operate due to upcoming drone subs.
A nuke would be perfect for a drone sub hub.
Current nuclear subs are very quiet it's not like the old days, and the AUKUS sub will be the quietest nuclear submarine up to that period, surpassing conventional subs. (currently under design at BAE).
Australia has a defence force that cannot reach out and touch an enemy its been set up for defence, yet our adversary's can touch us.
And a part of deterrence is to attack the enemy's home base and hurt him at home where it counts, the nukes VLS systems give it that capability with Tomahawk cruise missiles or its future replacement.
One cannot win a boxing match with just defending.
Guys, if USA knew that the submarine will be useless , do you think they would have done this ?
they had these subs far way back in the 80s where countries are still fighting conventional war. I doubted if this technology will be useful in 20 yrs time. Drone and Unmanned Subs will be the way to go.
@@426dfv At the risk of repeating myself you obviously know very little about this field - control of unmanned submersibles is very difficult - radio waves penetrate only around 7km. Effective control of the kill chain is limited so "man in the loop" control will still be needed until AI technology has advanced significantly. The AUKUS boats will be a new design - even the Astute class boats are 1990s technology so are beyond your "80s tech" explanation.
CLASSIFIED USA TECHNOLOGY. NICE THAT USA IS SHARING ITS SUPER DUPER NUCLEAR NAVAL TECH.
China already is in an arms race against the US, so it's an empty statement. China is alarmed since Aussie can then stalk their own nuke subs & beat their diesel ones in stamina. Nuke subs won't be obsolete in the future, it is rather the future since it can supply sufficient electricity for drones & controling them, fitting as drone motherships. Aussie then better make them bigger (metal & nuke fuel are cheap anyway) to fit more/bigger drones & add-on drone-suppport equipment in the future
China's defence spending is only 1.3% of GDP, US is at 3.9%, there is no arms race, there is only US struggling to keep up with China at walking pace.
And China's already exporting drone subs with fully autonomous kill authority, and Australia's hoping to get their first Virginia in the 2040s (narrator: the project will be cancelled in the 2030s)
I'm now finding out Richard Males is neutering these subs and the deal, as for the Virginia class nil not one sub will have the Virginia Payload Module vastly reducing the Vertical Launch Silos (VLS) thus land attack (Tomahawk) capability.
The Australian version of the AUKUS class submarine will not have a similar Virginia Payload Module arrangement, it will have just a few VLS tubes (this VPM capability was offered to Australia by the USA and Richard Marles rejected it!).......................this guy is China's best friend!
AUKUS SSN is a chance for Australia to have a real offensive attack capability of which many nations are obtaining, and we get the chance to create a land attack capability and what we get is not much better than other new conventional designs in the weapons capability!
Thank you Uncle Sam. Now let's get this done and make the world safer and better for our great brotherly nations and the rest of the world.
Brown nose much? these subs will be obsolete by the time the reach us and the pivotal shift to the pacific puts us in danger,
"US will share" like it's a free gift lol. Dont forget the huge price tag!
no one knows what will be useful 2 decades from now, so lets make the most advanced that we can and then constantly upgrade it along the way.
nimitz class still operates from mid 70s , doesnt mean its obsolete cus it had many upgrades be it be radars , missiles and wt not
Australia's continental waters are too shallow for submarines. We could set up bases on the continental shelf, but that would be at least a fair way off our coast
If China and Russia object then it must be a good idea. I will say I am annoyed at Sunak with his spineless decision to continue allowing Confucius institutes to continue operating in England. He ran as a China hawk and suddenly he turns into an appeasement mouse. I am so tired of these politicians never doing what they claim they will do.
This argument comes up a lot... But you guys do realise just because the enemy objects to the principle of what you are doing, doesn't automatically mean what you are doing isn't a complete waste of money.
@@903IDFOLEY Thats true, it could end badly but I think too much is at stake this time for the plan to fail. This deal is a good one in my opinion and should have been done long ago.
Confucius ideaology doesn’t preach communism,Lenin and Marx are the founders but communism can be better if handle with care!
@@georgesikimeti2184 The Confucius institutes have nothing to do with communism. They are espionage centers set to steal IP, research, influence and recruit spies in universities. They are not what they appear. As for communism, think again, it has never worked ever in the history of man. Communism has killed tens of millions of people all over the world. Communism doesn't work, and anyone that thinks so needs to dig deeper.
@@rickjames18democracy any better?
its go AUKUS! china is complaining about AUKUS, but they are also ramping up their nuclear stockpile, what for? see
When/if the nuclear subs arrive, it would be a clear violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
(The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty essentially requires nuclear weapon states who are a part of the treaty (US, UK, China, Russia and France) to not pass nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear weapons states.)
Fast attack submarines are nuclear powered, they do not carry nuclear weapons. They are armed only with conventional torpedoes.
Okay Chinese bot
Nuclear powered is not a nuclear weapon.
"technology could be obsolete"?? XJP is not going to wait until 2040 to finish his goal. The schedule is way off for the sub.
For the cost of one sub we could build two Melbourne airports and how many hospitals wake up Australia
All could be taken in the future by China.
You could also build 28 super carriers for that price.
Australia also have a 1 million drop bear paratroopers. 🐨 that would decimate any country so beware.
Actual title should be: How Australia’s New Submarines are a massive $368 billion rip off.
Such huge expenditure suggests new R&D, and, perhaps, further integration of the three countries’ defence industries. All three countries have specialist defence capabilities. The UK wants pivot to the Asia Pacific under Global Britain. The US doesn’t want the PRC on Taiwan projecting power beyond the First Island Chain. All three countries are very capable, and, more widely, link the straddle the globe.
a massive new industry to replace Holden(rip) and keep our nuclear physicists in Australia.
@@petersinclair3997 Why is 50% of Australian imports from China if they hate China so much? Who is the subs protecting? China owned Australia from China?
2:42 "Anglo-Saxon cabal" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Canceling the submarine contract with France still shook the NATO
Nah, it only upset Macron. Remember that "NA" = North Atlantic, not Indo-Pacific.
@@pro-libertatibus Upsetting the French was an added bonus to AUKUS.
@@madhavyu 🤣😂🤣😂
Maybe the French are confused as we signed a contract with Naval group for Diesel submarines then after the contract was signed we demanded the submarine have the same capabilities as their nuclear variant and instead have a U.S. combat system
The French were probably even more confused when we scrapped the deal in favour of a nuclear sub when the French could’ve just built us the Nuclear original variant of the submarine
The French even told Albo we could have our silly AUKUS alliance and still get French subs at a far better price and better timeframe of construction
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 "confused"? Aiui, the French were supposed to adapt their nuclear-powered design to a diesel-powered design. Billions and years later with nothing to show for investment, and $2bn penalty later, they were miffed that the lucrative deal was cancelled without prior notification of Prima Donna Macron.
Australia needs to wake up and pull its weight in defence of our natural resources and assets.
Crimea is not a part of Russia 1:03
What subs? So far we haven't had a sniff of a submarine.
Get France involved too they’re experts in nuclear power and I can vouch for the French atomic energy programs
That'd be awkward. Australia literally reneged on its deal with France and went with the US/UK instead. What's funny is that France had initially offered nuclear subs to Australia but that was refused...
@@RK-bx1by Reneged? Australia just took advantange of an exit clause written into the contract. France outed themselves as a hostile foreign state by trying to milk the Aussies in the design phase and by their immature Gaelic hissy fit when the contract was cancelled.
@@douglasnakamura6753 If France is a hostile foreign state then I wonder what that makes the USA and UK? The Australian taxpayer is going to foot a massive bill because of this new deal (roughly A$300 billion over the life of the program, if the costs don't blow out further).
All for what, eight submarines which won't all be operational at the same time due to maintenance, and be deployed to the South China Sea rather than closer to home? There's much talk of the submarines also not really contributing to the nuclear industry or lack thereof in Australia.
China was also a threat when the original deal with France was signed.
But hey, this is Australia's way of paying off the American protection racket.
@@RK-bx1by When was the French deal signed? around 2016. Australia was still on good terms by 2020 it became clear China was becoming a threat to the Australian Economy.
2016 Australian did not need SSN then. Also to maintain SSN over 30 years life every 10 years they need to be cut open to have their reactor replaces, which can only be done in France taking the sub out of action for up to 3 years. so 1/3 of their life spent in dock.
@RK-bx1by : Nope. The French refused to supply SSN's to Australia and that refusal eventually killed the deal.
Canada will join next. CANZUKUS.
The Aukus alliance between these countries are welcomed by many in the indo pacific.
These submarines are meant to maintain peace and open sea lanes. So countries can freely sail the seas and trade with the world.
Yeah, but for that, you need submarines, which you would have acquired with France. Not with the USA, except in maybe 20 years😂😂
150 billion a piece? either that number has been dramatically changed to hide the true numbers or someone read a price tag wrong, that is not possible, even with inflation.
I thought that was the whole program.
It probably includes the entire lifetime cost of operating the submarine. Canada calculated the price per unit of its F-35 acquisition the same way, lifetime cost of $215M per fighter jet, upfront cost of $85M per fighter jet.
Nuclear submarines will never be built in Australia. These statements are just soothsaying to appease the unions. AUKUS is a British initiative intended to allow the UK to build nuclear subs for Australia. But the reality is eventually Australian nuclear subs will be built in America.
Thats what everyone wanted but the US said they couldn't
not enough industrial base in u.s.
I doubt your opinion that ynions want them built in Australia more likely people with an inferiority complex with Australia being too dependent on other nations building their weapons
@@alexlanning712 Wumao alert!
@@douglasnakamura6753 "sorry" I dont get it
"... it has drawn criticism from Russia and China."
*GOOD!*
Honestly - *who gives a flying fk at the moon WHAT Russia and China think* but if they want to criticise it then fine!
It won't change *anything*.
Good on you, Australia! Good on you, UK and the US, for helping them with this!
Nuclear attack subs are the most lethal weapon system in the world
Not very lethal if they don't carry any nukes !!!
3 months underwater stealthing without enemy knowledge is just as good if not better!
Frankly speaking, I have to say that this group has no deterrent power. Simply put, it's not scary. In fact, I feel that America's finances and workload will continue to grow. And although Britain is good at information warfare, there is a strong impression that it is not good at actually fighting.
The UK and US are on par with each other tech wise. I don't think the royal navy has any need to use us tech.
NATO nations make use of the tech of other NATO nations. Defence companies are multinationals. So a UK sub will include tech from the likes of the US, France, Canada, etc.
Uk got its tech. from u.s in the first place,check facts!
@@georgesikimeti2184 no they didn't. British and American tech has been on par for awhile now.
@@SimonStrother The UK uses US nuclear submarine tech. The UK cannot sell this US nuclear submarine tech without US permission.
'Future subs'. SSN AUKUS. Australia will buy at least 3 USS Virginia as an interim, and is paying $3 billion to expand US sub-building capacity in US shipyards.
Buying 'pre-owned' Block 4 Virginias will cost about $3 billion each and makes sense. Preferably 5, as that is all Australian will be able to crew, and with a 50 year service life means the proposed AUKUS subs are not required.
Not the 8 'pie in the sky' not yet designed new AUKUS design built in Australia at probably an unaffordable $350 billion plus project cost, inevitably with huge cost and time over-runs.
Plus also about $200m for planned upgrades at Osborn shipyard (maintenance and refit) and similar amounts to upgrade both Sub Fleet East and West bases.
Currently Australia cannot even crew 6 Collins SS (only 4 actually in operational service) at 60 crew each - 1 captain is USN and 1 is Canadian Navy. Training the new crews with new nuclear tech specialists (and then retaining them) will be a real struggle even for 5 boats. The proposed 8 subs at 120 crew is simply not possible
And when the AUKUS program is inevitably cancelled or scaled back the cost per unit will be even more ridiculous, and leave a capability gap that cannot then be filled.
The Aussies hear co prosperity sphere and remember their lessons. Good on them.
“Hear co prosperity sphere” huh?
Well, the CCPs version of it. I don’t pretend that everyone in the west pacific likes each other
add me
Nuclear submarines are not quieter than deisels which run off batterys when submerged
The accusations bring forth by your enemies is an indicative to thier own doing
A lighthouse cannot shine on itself.
All goes to the fact that Australia is becoming the new bargaining chip of the United States. Participation in this alliance does not bode well for our country. I hope the authorities come to their senses and get out of it.
This is a man that is happy to watch his wife being bred by a Chinese man.
The subs are not intended to defend Australia. The subs are intended to interdict Chinese maritime interests specifically in the Malacca and Taiwan straits - thousands of km from the Australian mainland. That makes it offensive, and in addition, its design interoperability would allow it the capability of hosting nuclear weapons. Its threat to China's maritime trade is likely to be countered with a strategic response from China, that could involve targeting its home base.
+ 1000 social credits score.
Agree we should make china our allah like pakistan
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578bot
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 Social credit in China only applies to big corporations so the general public has an idea of how trustworthy they are.
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 lol, you just proved his point
Australia is the only nation allowed to “breach” the non nuclear treaty, if you read it it states any nation that was apart of the original nuclear programs can develop, house and facilitate nuclear weapons and power without breaching their agreements, Australia was apart of those original programs the rest already have nukes.
Australia was a part of the Manhattan project look up Mark Oliphant
@@LeonAust That’s what I was referring too as the original nuclear programs.
Yep bang on! ...........if it wasn't for Mark the US would not have had the bomb. He was the Tizard mission to the US.
SSNs don’t care nuclear weapons, dingus.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Nobody said they did “dingus” I was implying we are well within our rights to develop any nuclear technology we want.
Still old deal with France was better for Australia's defense. However for offence, nuclear sub is better.
And what has NEVER been articulated is why we need to be offensive or care about Taiwan
@@angus1391it is not solely about defence of Taiwan it is about an armed military conflict around Taiwan.
A blockade or conflict would reduce the availability of Chips in the world, it will destroy trade routes to Japan and South Korea and a conflict in the West Philippines sea will hurt trade to SEA.
Note: Indian Ocean in the next few years is not going to be as quite as now. Iran is already stirring the pot. China is talking to Pakistan about ports and railways (avoid trade conflict zone) as Myanmar is broken right now.
What defence, along the shoreline of Australia? Canada is going to pay South Korea $50Billion for 12 SSK. The France SSK had blown out to $90Billion. How is that better to buy expensive, slow, short distance and low armed subs.
@@thomasb5600 Why do we need to be involved in an armed conflict around Taiwan? In what way are we strategically compromised? Why would we want to break open a blockade at risk of being framed as an aggressor when we realistically can sustain ourselves w/o trade in East Asia
@@angus1391 How do ships get to South Korea and Japan from Australia? Through the west Philippines sea right pass Taiwan.
We are taking about the largest supplier of computer chips, not potato chips. That is a $14 billion trade to Australia.
That so called can do without East Asia. Really! Sure taking $140 billion hit on trade to China will hurt but an $90 billion and impacts into SEA $130 billion. That's not including investments. I think protecting over $360 billion a year in trade is worth us getting involved even if it is to prevent a blockade or military action with diplomacy.
what happen when iran order nuclear from russia or china now ?
Due to the inevitable timeframe and cost blowouts to at least twice the original estimates , by the time these submarines are delivered they would be decades behind the latest submarines and other undersea weapons that are current as at their delivery dates!
Such as?? 🤣
Thats the cope talking 😂
Other countries face the same problems developing new technologies.
@@aussiviking604 how’s it cope we aren’t getting the subs until at least 2040, we are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for a mystery sub that we won’t get for a few decades when we could’ve paid tens of billions for submarines right now from Japan or Germany
@Moses Goldbergshekelstien Due to our location and proximity to 3 major oceans. A shallow water short-range defensive class Submarine. Really does not suit our strategic needs... Also, the cost is not per unit costs, but the the total cost of setting up complete manufacturing in Australia. Time for next future. Get with the program.
I dont think thay are quiter as the collin class is esentialy swedish gotland subs
If North Korea is allowed to have nuclear weapons then both Japan and the ROK should have it too
And then Iran, then Iraq for real this time.
@@vlhc4642 working for 50 cent party or Glavset?
With u.s submarine technology 20yrs ahead of anybody,the decision by Australia to aukus is a milestone especially the defensive capabilities of the us subs.,with due respect to the French,the u.s is a far superior stealthy weapon.
Russia is the sub leader.
French and UK as good
@@alanbstard4 No for the french
no it isn't. French have great boats too and would have been cheaper to buy
@@alanbstard4
Yeah? Which French boat is great?
Austrialia may not have nuclear or chemical weapons, but their wildlife sure counts as a biological weapon! God help anyone if they load spiders onto any of those missiles...
Magpies might be even scarier than missiles...
Imagine that, that Russia and China want Australia to be weak.
2040's? we need those subs now!! sheesh....
Paul Keating call this con job.
Oh my god it's submarine
250 billion dollars, easy money😂
I just worry about the plans leaking. The more directions a pipe goes the more likely a leak
I mean, why would you be talking seriously about a submarine that will come at least ten years later to counter China? God knows how many nuclear sub china would have built then. China's nuclear submarine shipyard expansion has finished and its size can guarantee 3 SSN+1 SSBN launched each year the least.
The general idea is that because they couldn't detect any Chinese submarines, China must have completely forgot submarines exist and why they built that new sub yard.
Most Australians don't even want these subs. But because the WSJ is pro neoliberalism, and so is Australia's duopoly of governments, we get this video.
@@TempleGuitars yeah, I'm gonna need a source on that. im assuming you pulled most of us dont want them out of your you know what.
unless you are poking fun at the number of Chinese now here, saying it accounts to most of the population
there is essentially bipartisan support for them lol
Yet, within 10 years Australia will be operating at least 3 SSN Virgina Class subs. Fine China building 3 SSN a year in about 5 years, It is not Australia v China it will be AUKUS+ v China. Even Chinas rate that would need over 15 years of full capacity to get near the US fleet. Add the UK and Aus fleets you are looking at about 2040's before China has roughly the same number of SSN. This does not include replacement rates for China. AUKUS numbers will be increasing by about 10 SSN by that time as current US rates are replacement.