When Hugh wrote Defending Australia i thought he was off his trolley...now i see where AUKUS is heading and i am realising how valuable it is to have a staunch independant thinker who sticks to his guns
The 'Arsenal of Democracy' produces 40 percent of the world's weapons. It is a very profitable business model in which other countries buy these weapons to fight each other. The key is maximizing profits without shedding US blood by inducing conflicts between and within countries outside the USA. One client is very eager to spend AUD 368 billion to buy a few high-quality used nuclear-powered submarines.
Britain's arms sales to the Middle East and South America have always been a major way British defence, naval, ship building and high tech is sustained. Britains arm sales have often been at the extent which endangered Western strategic interests in particular the sale of fast Vospers Thornycroft frigates to Iran and Libya in 1970.British MOD Denis Healey argued that Iran( the Shah) and Libya would act as regional stabalisers and surrogates for the Royal Navy and Marines !!!. The sale of the British sepcat Jaguar fighter bombers to India far exceeded the security consequences of UK Leander licensed frigate sales to India The sepcat Jaguar sale to India probably transfered immensely accurate GPS targeting systems to India ally in 1971 the USSR and one of the immediate consequences of the Sepcat Jaguar sale to India which meant France immediately Abandoned the testing the Jaguar M naval strike fighter from French aircraft carriers and on security ground substituted the very inferior all French super Entendad. Currently the RN has one OPV in the Pacific HMS Tamar but if Britain based one British carrier HMS QE2 or HMS Wales at Sydney their really ambhibious support army transports with a few J35 fighters aboard line the USN Tarawas, that would greatly supplement the RAN and Australian Army ability to rapidly respond to a major volcanic, earthquake of Tusami on a Pacific Island or the Alpine fault splitting in NZ . A major British involvement might in supplement the Australian forces sufficiently go avoid the need for major Chinese military involvement in the NZ relief and in coordinating NZ armed force and service response which might effectively lead to much greater Chinese power and influence in the region and even the NZ land mass becoming static PLN aircraft carriers 1000 miles off the Australian coast and the beginning of Australian encirclement.
This is one of the best AUKUS analysis I have seen. Most of the initial ones were a bunch of nuclear sub fanboys and China hawks saying how great it was for Australia to have this this 'apex predator' type of sub. Without any strategic analysis of Australia's foreign policy, without any risk assessment, and without discussion what type of submarine missions the Australian navel actually ought to be doing.
The idea that Australia needed to defend itself from China's attack or invasion is ludicrous; China's Taiwan issue is an internal affair of China. To launch a war to interfere is itself an act of aggression and suicidal.
@@alfred-vz8ti Less dangerous until you are hit by one.! 'Everything is is bigga n betta in Merica' ! All about 'EGO' for the owner/driver ! A nice little Toyota or Hino truckster would be far more practical !
Great discussion. I have always thought the ditching of the French subs had more to do with English antipathy towards the EU and France in particular which Morrison bought into during his nostalgic ancestral trip too England. Post Brexit England is a mess. The US teeters on the brink of war with itself. Neither country is coming to save us in the event of war. Aukus is a fantasy.
I doubt anyone in the Australian Government was thinking about “antipathy toward the EU” when they cancelled the deal with Naval Group… AUKUS may well be a fantasy, but so are assumptions like these. The fact of the matter was that Naval Group had never undertaken a foreign contract of that size and the program was already beset by huge problems even a couple years on from the original agreement.
@@DeftPolLies that have been proven false and stupid. Glad to see that you care enough about the issue to keep up with international defense policies and contracts.
@@just_an_old_Gunner I do not doubt Astutes and Virginias are superior to Suffrens (though Astutes have reliability problems with PWR2 reactor). But you identify the critical point. We have gone from building a regionally superior SSK to building the world's best (and most expensive) SSN. As a result we are cutting the rest of the ADF to ribbons to afford them. Defence seems incapable of understanding the concept of "fit for purpose". The French SSN would have been more than adequate, and half the cost of SSN AUKUS.
you will not defend when they release the slaughter drones, you will hear the heavy bass American rapp music, that colonists tunes as they take over their new prison planet
@@Mr.Agateophile.Who sets the tone, both economically and militarily? Which other nation has the ability to force project anywhere on Earth to protect, maintain and expand its economic and geopolitical interests, and does so routinely? Which other nation is a bigger impediment to real action on anthropogenic global warming, pollution, resource depletion, social justice and corporate accountability? Which other nation has had a hand in destabilising and usurping as many democratically elected governments? Can you name a nation that represents a bigger problem than the current global hegemon? It's about time people realised "pax americana" is an oxymoron. The evidence is clear and unequivocal, america is the single greatest threat to human kind and global peace, the second greatest threat is its collapse. This is the conundrum of the 21st century. america is the problem.
@@space.youtubeEverything you said and frankly its risky to be in a heavily involved alliance. The name of the game is to keep it agreeable and light but wriggle out of any longer duration commitments, they lumber, they forget they dont care, just withdraw. Kissinger said it. "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous but to be a friend is fatal"
You are right. It has killed tens of millions of people in its unnecessary wars for the last 60 years. It's driven so many countries into dire poverty and despair. It's been a huge sucking parasite on the planet for too long.
This situation recalls when the US persuaded Switzerland to purchase F-35s, an amusing choice given that Switzerland bought a stealth fighter-bomber, specialized in deep strikes into fortified hostile territories, for air policing tasks.
Just what is "China's challenge" which needs defeating? If you were China, faced with almost complete encirclement by US military bases, (some, perhaps even many with nuclear weapons,) and supported by a group of "allies" who have either been bribed, frightened of blackmailed into supporting the US, what would you do, sit on your hands, shrug and sing c'est la vie, or would you attempt to defend yourself. Ridiculous. The greatest danger to Australia and the rest of the world, including the US itself, is not China, but the anything but benign USA. It is long past time when Australia should stand up, shake of the dandruff of the US, ASPI, AUKUS and the ANZAC security hoax, stop cringing and think seriously rather than with its usual impotent, self-flagellating US dependent poor little me-ness.
This is what the US fears about China, that people see China doing no harm, while the US invades and dictates to whom they wish. The United Sociopaths have already invaded Australia.
It’s easy to understand it if you understand that it’s a race issue. Australia is full of white supremacists at heart. In their view, the US is like them, and China is not. There’s no point debating or convincing racists, their mind is already set.
China is not encircled by the United States and its allies. The core reason for Aukus is the immediate shortage of crew and good quality crews ( the USN has 3 quality levels for crew on destroyers or SSN say gold silver and bronze). Australia and the UK/RN it's is hoped will solve the immediate problem of manning USN SSN and by default USN CVN.The RN probably does have the capability to provide good crew and officers for USN warships and SSN almost immediately RN officers having commanded many RAN frigates, destroyers and Collins subs in recent years. Secondly Aukus reflects the failure of the US to fully integrate with its major non English speaking allies France,Germany and Japan because US military and intelligence agents no longer speak French,German and Japanese and therefore only trust and want to work with far less capable English speaking nations which have only a fraction of the military and Industrial capability Japan,France and Germany could achieve in 5 years.
The money wasted on nuclear submarines - could have built high speed rail connections (just like in Laos & Java - built by China [the imaginary "enemy"]). But the corrupt morrison and his low IQ liberal friends got high paying jobs working the yanks.
We could have simply bought the latest submarines from Japan, and built there they could have built them in record time compared to building them here. Albanese should have not fallen for ScoMao’s wedge politics and called his bluff.
$368 billion is a million dollars a day for the next thousand years. Spend a fifth of that on a fleet of state if the art conventional subs, & invest the rest in preserving & enhancing Australia & its residents. I'll leave you to compile the list...
$368 is a lot of money in total, but it’s a multi-decadal program and it’s actually not as much as other budget items… the NDIS alone is now costing about $90bn a year for instance. The problem with your alternative (and Hugh’s) is that you have the calculus wrong. Hugh’s view on the superiority of a ‘sea denial strategy’ that 45 smaller subs would represent hasn’t changed since the 2009 White Paper, which was a markedly different strategic environment in which China had no blue water navy and a fraction of its current surface fleet. China’s navy could now EASILY overwhelm a force of 45 smaller littoral defence submarines - especially for a country as massive as Australia and our very sparsely spread population. The bet Australia’s government - on both sides - has made is that the safe strategic threat is to embed our defence capabilities into the US’s much larger force to stop China at the first conflict, rather than decide to go neutral and wait until a potential overwhelming of the US fleet in the Pacific to just hold our breath and hope that China’s expansionist tendencies end at Taiwan.
So this anti nuclear country decide to sign on building and using submarines with nuclear reactor propulsion without actually knowing anything about nuclear reactor or how handeling nuclear waste. This choice cost hundreds billions to the Australian tax payer. The US and The UK will probably not be able to build the Australians subs in time The Collins retire. Great defense strategy. The NetherLands just chose French Naval group for their subs , i'll bet they are going to get their subs before Australia while signing the contract 4 years later.
France will also assist Brazil with a nuclear submarine project. The advantage of French technology is that it uses low-enriched uranium, the same kind used by all nations in the medical field, eliminating the need for specific management.
I think the way the US abandoned Afghanistan and so many Afghans who supported them, should indicate how reliable an ally they are. Also, for all its service to its US master, Sunak got sent back to Britain with his begging bowl empty when he needed a trade deal to help the UK out of the brexit hole it dug itself.
The Houthis lesson also tells us that will be too costly for China or anyone to invade fortress Australia. It is cheaper to use drones and satellite assisted weaponary and these seems to be more future relevant. Would have been better to invest in Huawei 5g, than nuke subs.😂😂
In my view we as a distant, large but sparsely populated, resource rich country, need to suck up to one great power to maintain sovereignty in the short term, however we need to develop sovereign defence capability, underwater drones, anti air missiles, cheaper submarines etc. to make it unattractive for a great power to go to war with us.
yes we are dealing with smug traitors. Note that Albo and Wong and Marles and Dutton are now all formally accused of aiding genocide. History will judge Israel and Zionism, and all who supply weapons and provide support, just as we judge the perpetrators of 1940s holocaust genocide.
Any PM after Morrison would have no choice but to accept. To cancel AUKUS would be as big a fiasco as cancelling the French deal. It would cause significant harm to the US and UK relationship, which would be a rash thing to do when Australia has already become so embedded in that relationship, and even more risky at a time when China-Australian relations were at a low point. It's also important to note AUKUS is much more than just nuclear submarines, it's a wide package of technology and equipment. To cancel your access to such cutting edge stuff would frankly be idiocy. Renegotiation is the best solution.
@@孙威-k5z What a load of ASPI drivel!! Our Path To Peace And Prosperity Is To Not Be The Lackey Country - by Brett B Stokes, Adelaide 10Aug2023 A response to Rex Patrick's article titled "Death of Sovereignty: everyday Australians will pay the cost of US kowtowing, AUKUS, inevitable war". To my fellow Australians, today 10th August 2023, it would seem we are locked in to disastrous war and cruel austerity, that we have no choice. Rex Patrick called it yesterday. The transparency warrior former senator ex submariner says war is inevitable. I disagree. Why do I disagree? Because history, and people power. Rex is 56, so in 1972 he was just 5. The impact of the 1972 victory, and the path we took to get that victory, we were there and we know the reality, we oldies know. Rex quotes from "All the way with LBJ" because he read it in history books. I was there then, emerging into puberty at a time when censorship was very real. Along with puberty came a political awakening, sparked by images from the war zone, images that burst through the censorship. There was the young girl running from the burning petrol dropped on her by our side. There was the street execution, bullet to the head, by the puppet Good Guy boss of the regime we were fighting to preserve. There was the burning monk, sitting in the flames, dying to draw attention. And there was the photo from the My Lai massacre, which featured on the quality printed pamphlet that went into letterboxes all over Adelaide. There was blowback from some people who thought such letterboxing was treachery, that it was worth abuse and maybe a beating in response. Slowly, the peace movement grew and grew. And then we won a great victory, with the election of Gough Whitlam's mob in 1972. Gough told the yanks where to go, and the people reaped the rewards of real reforms. Nowadays the ALP is captured, controlled by war worshipping climate crims, smug traitors who choose war and austerity. To me, Albo is Bob Santamaria unburied and updated. Like Santamaria, Albo will cause the ALP to split. Like Santamaria, Albo will be left with the right wing rump. The real people remaining in the ALP will call out the Albo gang, soon, and there will be a split. The "Real ALP" people will then work with the Greens, Adam Bandt will be PM and it will be a lot like 1972 again. When will the spilt come? When will we have Bandt PM and tell the yanks to eff off? Hey, it took five long years back then before the internet, before mobile phones. There were lots of people working to get lots more people involved. We did face to face chats with friends, we did letterboxing. There were long lead times before rallies and lots of promotion, little posters and pamphlets everywhere. We grew the peace movement so large that we Stopped The Country To Stop The War. And we did stop the war. "Get active now" blessed be all who challenge the war worshippers
This discussion is interesting, but it feels unbalanced without a Defence insider to rebut/challenge Hugh. I understand Hugh’s perspective and I’m also a little concerned about the scale, complexity and timelines of this program. But somehow this fiendishly complex program has received massive bipartisan buy-in. So what do they know that us outsiders don’t? What I think Hugh misses with his argument for a ‘sea-denial’ strategy of buying 45 boats is that strategically it’s probably a harder task for our defence forces than attempting to nip Chinese expansionism in the bud by augmenting a larger and more capable US force. Back in 2009 when I first heard Hugh make this argument, this made some sense as the Chinese navy was still a fraction the size of the US’s and wasn’t yet a ‘blue water navy’ that could project power far beyond its coastline. The world has moved on though, and the Chinese navy today is both larger in total number of surface vessels than the US and at least partially a blue water navy. In this new environment, 45 conventional powered subs just will not be effective in defending our shores in a world without the US navy patrolling the seas - especially for a coastline as staggeringly large as ours. That’s what this agreeable back and forth between Hugh and Ms Bennett misses. The strategic calculus being made is a pretty horrible one, but it’s basically down to “do we sit on the sidelines and hope the US prevail in a war over Taiwan and just hope China decides not to overwhelm us” (and make no mistake, 45 littoral combat subs would be easily overwhelmed), or “do we pick a side and hope that a combined effort between the US, us and other partners can help to maintain the current order”. On balance, I think there’s a strong argument for the later… As for ASEAN and Malaysia’s President Ibrahim, what neither Hugh or Ms Bennett raise (or are perhaps unaware of) is that Beijing announced approximately $50bn in infrastructure investment in the past 12 months, so OF COURSE Malaysia isn’t going to take a side in this… but what about other countries in the region? Both also failed to point out that China’s belligerence has now gotten to a point that it has led to a previously unthinkable defence arrangement between South Korea and Japan. These details matter, yet you ignore them.
I don't think this sum is only about the subs. Here in France, our new class of nuclear attack subs cost 10 billions for 6 subs, and an estimated 50 billions during the course of the subs life. Even if the Virginia class are 3 times more expensive, there is still a huge gap here. Pretty sure there must be much more in this deal than just the subs.
@@JonKino828 the delivery time is in the decades because it must align with US/UK need of renewal. And the numbers I gave included the R&D, obviously not simply the production.
@@JonKino828Morrison the former PM signed for this. Now australians will pay 3-4 times the initial budget, and will maybe receive their subs in 2060. Maybe. All while becoming USA dog. Serve Australia right
This is just my opinion, but I think Australia should just live where they live. Come up with a defense policy that has absolutely zero to do with “defending democracy”. Have no defense treaties with the USA. I’m serious. If you must have alliances, then pick your neighbor- Indonesia. The West is in terminal decline
In a war where they attempt to take Taiwan, various countries along the persian gulf-to-china trading route could choose to simply interdict chinese trade. Such countries along the route that "don't like china" to put it mildly are, India, Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines and we can certainly count America given the number of US bases stationed in half these countries. 75% of chinese oil consumption comes from such a trade route, along with almost half their food and most of the inputs required to grow their own too. Cutting it off subjects them to the largest de-industrialisation in human history and a qing-dynasty style famine, making the ability to shut down such a trade route, a deterrance that helps to prevent such a war and also makes it an issue china can't just ignore if they want to expand. One of the best places to cut off such trade would be the Malacca Strait, making it an area of interest that both sides will fight for in a war. If china gets control of it, Australia's self-sufficient in terms of food, but the rest is definitely a real risk for us too, and that's assuming they don't decide to attack military infrastructure here that we could choose to use to assist the US. If China tries to take Taiwan or exert control in the south china sea, it's not like Australia can choose to "opt-out" (as stated above). Even if we could, the war would mean an instant recession and China being in control of the south china sea would mean there'd be nothing to stop them coercing us into trading with them for cents on the dollar or else they cut off our oil/electronics/steel by blocking trade. The Philippines are trying to televise and record as much as they can of the chinese coast guard intruding into their EEZ and attacking fishing and naval vessels and while Vietnam is trying to play both sides, their navy certainly has things to say about china going out of their way to disrupt their economy. TL;DR, there's practically nothing to suggest we'd be left alone if china were to "win" such a war and plenty of past behaviour and warnings from china to suggest that they would not allow Australia as we know it to continue existing. The US, at least, has a decent track record of protecting trade and abiding by international law on the sea. There's a rulebook they point to and abide by that everyone else needs to follow (and has agreed to) too, and that's certainly a better deal than the arbitrary mercy of a dictator that, like putin, has told us exactly what he's going to do before ultimately following through.
It was an indirect threat. US has been maintaining the order for Australia for a long while. China is new, although non aggressive historically, you can never be 100% sure of them in the future. USA runs on a genius USD scam, and almost all were playing along. China threatened that game , thus became the primary threat to the game, and thus primacy of USA, and this endanger the order that guarantee of 'safety' to Australia. However, US shot itself in its foot, by confiscating all the points gained by Russia in the game. Now that terrified most players, and they wanted out, at least not bank completely on the 'scam'. I got tired , you make up the rest of the story.
" Fall apart of its own implausibility! ' Great quotable phrase.. The subservience of our policy to the American 'Military Industrial Complex is about time to be discontinued, reduced, scaled back even though we buy a lot of 'stuff' and have done, from the Yanks. We have to chart our own course, and supply our own facility ! Revisit the Japaneseum offer !
Forty conventional subs? Exactly where is the Navy going to find all the submariners for so many subs. They are flat out manning the few operational Collin’s class subs they have now.
Great discussion. Leaves the question for Australia to ask itself as to what constitutes an enemy to Australia. Never mind the whom because what determines the whom. Economic stability underlies all stability, including those from security, because economics is the currency for all situations. Resorting to nuclear is a no brianor,because it is the ultimate decision to end all life. When Australia goes nuclear, even just in its submarine propulsion, it has gone nuclear. There is no such thing as being a little pregnant. You are committed. Wake up Australia. Don’t be paralysed from the likes of Morrison and his kind in our politics.
Australia is an infantile country lacking in self confidence and the faith in its ability to behave like a truly sovereign country and it's not going to get better. By the time the 2030s and 2040s role around we're going to be so woke we'll be lucky to have a functioning army let alone the ability to operate a nuclear powered submarine fleet. I'm left of centre and progressive, but the trajectory of our society to defend itself internally, let alone internationally, is not encouraging.
Thank you for a wonderful discussion which we’re just not hearing enough from informed people who have an alternative view to the government and media narrative.
Hopefully this question hasn’t already been asked and answered. Q) Can the Boeing Orca class submarines which are basically drones, can they perform the same objectives the Collins class can do?
Ukraine has shown us all that the so called bigger and better is not necessary the answer and drowns can knock out capital marine vessels very easily. I agree that drone submarines would be a better option.
@@freethinker4991 just addressing the manning ability we have issues with currently. The con with Orcas are their top speed. But 5 Orcas recently cost the U.S. Navy $621m which certainly undermines the billions spent on AUKUS. Basic strategy can overcome their water speed issue.
@@JGB70I have been keeping track of the Ukraine and even cheaper drones have been sinking Russian ships. The Australian military have been going on to meany junkets paid for by the USA and now we are buying obsolete tech from the USA. I but money on it the Scomo will soon be siting on a USA board or some sort as his kickback for such a deal to screw the French.
They can perform some tasks, such as mine laying and EW, but they can't make tactically relevant decisions independently and don't carry the same sorts of weapons/offensive capabilities. "Autonomous" is a misnomer when discussing drones modern militaries are developing today. Drone platforms such as the MQ-28 Ghostbat are still commanded in real-time what to do by other aircraft such as F-35s or E-7s, they just don't need to be manually piloted 24-7 like an MQ-9, instead they can be told to "fly to this location and launch X weapon" or "jam this target". Such systems *need* a nearby (line of sight) "command centre" to exchange information with and make tactical decisions. For submarine drones, that means a manned submarine. You *could* have a surface ship perform the command role, but that undermines the stealth advantage sub-surface platforms provide. In a conflict with China, neither side would be able to use manually-piloted drones as pervasively and successfully as, say, the Ukranians. The distances are too long for a FAB-500 warhead duct-taped a jet-ski engine and a starlink terminal to get to a target in the pacific most of the time and even if it did, the navies involved have actual EW capabilities and the systems and doctrine to easily localise and destroy such systems before they get close enough to be a threat. Similar drone systems are being used unsuccessfully against the US navy in the red sea currently. TL;DR, drones *can* offer various advantages (mass of fires, performing especially dangerous tasks), but they're not some silver bullet that's going to fundamentally change how wars are fought and replace various types of manned platforms that already exist.
I am always mystified by AUKUS. What can it do that cannot be done by the US-UK and US-Australia alliance? UK and Australia are half the world apart and they are too weak to do anything by themselves. Other than being a totally useless organization to provide patronage, what can it do?
I fail to see how AUKUS subs provide value for money as Defence. What real Offence could they offer? What actual value is a Navy in the internet missile age? What defence alternatives were considered for the expected Subs cost? Would they really be a deterrent compared to a much larger and diversified airforce and missile force?
I’m a bit skeptical that Dr Shortis really understands the implications and seriousness of what White is talking about when she implies more diplomacy from Australia is what’s needed. Seriously?
Australia desperately needs a REAL DEMOCRATIC political party that is trusted and can defeat the combined efforts of LNP/Labour/Murdoch/Large Corporates from their planned corruption of Australian society and business. Can the Australia Institute be a catalyst for this?
So with no negotiation and having taken the first offer presented by a private company we have decided to not attain a very important piece of equipment that provides multifaceted solutions to problems our nation is facing. We need nuclear power stations (if only to replace our coal fired ones in capitol cities at a cost of $17kw/hr instead of $32kw/hr, but all the cost is up front and before innovation of decommmissioning costs ie: space storage, space functions usage, or slow consumption use fo waste in the reactor to actual make it not produced) for these and for our country. We already have a reactor here between sydney and wollongong that produces energy, but is purpose built for the production of medical radioactive isotopes, progress or stay idle in a rut. When the company presented the cost it is balking. However, for functionality the about to be decommisssioned los angeles class is exactly what we need. If we ask for these as they decommission them and have them refueled instead we would save the US money, free up labour of theirs for their new class, have our submarines in 2 years time( two are in dock awaiting to be decommisssioned right now), and close the gap in time between our submarines due to change over from the collins, cost much less than brand new leading ship in class, loose nothing in strategic functionality (these are currently except, for the new US one replacing these, leading ship in class world wide) and have a proven, safe and reliable platform with a former owner well versed in it's use, maintenence, opperational gold standard practices, sonar, etc. Come on please go back to the table and negotiate for a better deal that helps them and ourselves. Incidentally deal with the state department or governemnt directly and not the company as they simply run their hands together and imagine a number they think they can get away with asking that we will pay. $300 billion for 6 subs in 20 years is more than what they are paying for their new subs, play the game and get the rewards. In this case it will be worth it despite the powerful coal lobby desperately speading missinformation.
We don't need nuclear power. Australia is so energy abundant. Port Phillip Bay could be used as a tidal power station. The upper half of the WA coast has the largest stretch and highest range of tidal change. We have solar, we have wind we have so many options. Nuclear is wanted because those at the top and mines will profit.
US political elite ain't silly people. Their tactics is very easy, creating a boogeyman in every part of the world, e.g. Russia in Europe, China in Asia, Iran in Middle East, the rest of those countries living in that particular part would have a security demand, and then who they would look to? very obvious, and then automatically dependence are created. Very smart move, you have to admit.
His reasoning is unnecessarily wordy. The US is very short on Virginia class subs, and congress passed a law stating 'no submarines shall be produced for another country until the US has a full fleet.' It doesn't, and won't for the next 5 decades, therefore, AUS got conned.
Innovation for peace are less complicated than Innovation for wars.. Hmmmm.. pick a pathway for your investment.. from overall logical investment within a definition itself... hmmmm.
A somewhat pessimistic view, on all counts, regarding Australia as a whole and the Australian people's capability to learn... Yes it will be expensive, yes we will need to learn and transform our capabilities, but in the process we will necessarily become a far richer country.
Cup half empty guy - never heard him say anything positive. Hopefully though this doesn't come to pass as we can't afford them and ultimately they will distract attention and money from other technologies.
Taiwan has just launched their first homebuilt submarine and another 8 will follow. Australia can have more practical or affordable ways in defending American hegemony or west pacific status quo, whatever you name it.
I’m afraid I find his assessment of UK submarine construction totally inaccurate. There are manning problems in the Service but that has nothing to do with industry. The Astute and Dreadnought classes are both on time and in budget.
@@olivier9946 UK yards wouldn’t be building Australian subs. Rolls Royce (an absolute world leader in nuclear reactor manufacturing) would be making the reactor units and a few other sub components would come from UK suppliers (which is already the case for hundreds of ships and submarines around the world including many used by Australia). Not sure what your point is here? There was never an option to build a genuine 100% indigenous design that’s why the previous one was French.
Naval group have sold a dozen scorpene in the last 25 years, they have already sold 4 additional barracudas to the Netherlands. If actually getting their subs at a fair price on time and on reasonable terms was of any importance, considering neither the uk or us didn't even bid in the original competition, I'm pretty sure they should have went with the original short fin barracudas
@@guillaumefigarella1704 The UK and US didn’t bid because the original spec was for a conventionally powered design which UK and US industry haven’t had experience with in the last few decades. Scorpene has been successful on the export market but it’s worth mentioning not to any first rate navies, their success has been for countries looking for a solid budget friendly choice (which is a totally valid option) and the shortfin barracuda concept was a totally untested concept which the French themselves didn’t want. Astute and Virginia are both in service and absolutely world leading.
High White is a self declared expert - come media junkie that most Australians tend to ignore these days. He is clearly politically biased to the left, and is, in my opinion, no friend of the USA because he tends to oppose increased integration in the US alliance ‘plan of battle’, so to speak. Please folk - if you must listen to his opinions just take them with a grain of salt!
Rule AUKUS.... AUKID rules the seas. This is about lining up to control the seas and seeing who else will join. Global trade depends on secure shipping and USA is sick of doing themselves. Aukus will succeed if 2nd tier partners join and put skin in the game. Lots of time for us to pivot whilst also showing committment to the PAX Aukusana.
I am all for recognitioning culture but does it have to be rammed home every time, surely it goes without saying that all reasonable humans will not discriminate and will respect? Does it make the announcing party feel good? What does it really do this constant moralizing to us adults? Would it not be better directed in places of education at a young age only and then allow us to grow in understanding by our acord? I feel it is so patronising and not trusting our ability to do the right thing. So thanks I did not listen to the rest of it.
I don't get why Indonesia isn't getting the honey treatment not to forget a 200mil new market. To get to China U go through Indo waters. 50 bill would be better spent there shoring up our closest neighbours. They have a dislike for China from WW2 and before. In 2000 china was communist non capitalist now it's doing capitalism better than those who invented it. They have had a single head of state for centuries. China should be commended for it's effort to become better global citizens. It's all belt n road china scheming. It's really hard to repossess a bridge. In that same time we've spent 3 trillion being arseholes. We're not the good guys.
When Hugh wrote Defending Australia i thought he was off his trolley...now i see where AUKUS is heading and i am realising how valuable it is to have a staunch independant thinker who sticks to his guns
The 'Arsenal of Democracy' produces 40 percent of the world's weapons. It is a very profitable business model in which other countries buy these weapons to fight each other. The key is maximizing profits without shedding US blood by inducing conflicts between and within countries outside the USA. One client is very eager to spend AUD 368 billion to buy a few high-quality used nuclear-powered submarines.
Britain's arms sales to the Middle East and South America have always been a major way British defence, naval, ship building and high tech is sustained. Britains arm sales have often been at the extent which endangered Western strategic interests in particular the sale of fast Vospers Thornycroft frigates to Iran and Libya in 1970.British MOD Denis Healey argued that Iran( the Shah) and Libya would act as regional stabalisers and surrogates for the Royal Navy and Marines !!!. The sale of the British sepcat Jaguar fighter bombers to India far exceeded the security consequences of UK Leander licensed frigate sales to India The sepcat Jaguar sale to India probably transfered immensely accurate GPS targeting systems to India
ally in 1971 the USSR and one of the immediate consequences of the Sepcat Jaguar sale to India which meant France immediately Abandoned the testing the Jaguar M naval strike fighter from French aircraft carriers and on security ground substituted the very inferior all French super Entendad. Currently the RN has one OPV in the Pacific HMS Tamar but if Britain based one British carrier HMS QE2 or HMS Wales at Sydney their really ambhibious support army transports with a few J35 fighters aboard line the USN Tarawas, that would greatly supplement the RAN and Australian Army ability to rapidly respond to a major volcanic, earthquake of Tusami on a Pacific Island or the Alpine fault splitting in NZ . A major British involvement might in supplement the Australian forces sufficiently go avoid the need for major Chinese military involvement in the NZ relief and in coordinating NZ armed force and service response which might effectively lead to much greater Chinese power and influence in the region and even the NZ land mass becoming static PLN aircraft carriers 1000 miles off the Australian coast and the beginning of Australian encirclement.
@@frederickmiles327 But today, Britain is unable to supply, due No Energy, money nor material to build.
This is one of the best AUKUS analysis I have seen. Most of the initial ones were a bunch of nuclear sub fanboys and China hawks saying how great it was for Australia to have this this 'apex predator' type of sub. Without any strategic analysis of Australia's foreign policy, without any risk assessment, and without discussion what type of submarine missions the Australian navel actually ought to be doing.
yes - A Protection racket without the Protection with no need for Protection.
The idea that Australia needed to defend itself from China's attack or invasion is ludicrous; China's Taiwan issue is an internal affair of China. To launch a war to interfere is itself an act of aggression and suicidal.
Re: buying into projects bigger than we need. Look at those ridiculous giant utes infesting our roads.
The US banned the sales of Australian made vehicles in the US, but they force theirs into our country.
not fair. utes relatively useful, much less dangerous.
@alfred-vz8ti the car-sized utes are great. Just not the aircraft carrier-sized ones.
@@alfred-vz8ti Less dangerous until you are hit by one.! 'Everything is is bigga n betta in Merica' !
All about 'EGO' for the owner/driver ! A nice little Toyota or Hino truckster would be far more practical !
Listen to Mr Keating.
PK hopped into all and sundry at the press club about a year ago on this issue. Fell on deaf ears
"It'll fall apart of its own implausibility." Quote of the day, Mr White.
Let's hope.
Great discussion. I have always thought the ditching of the French subs had more to do with English antipathy towards the EU and France in particular which Morrison bought into during his nostalgic ancestral trip too England. Post Brexit England is a mess. The US teeters on the brink of war with itself. Neither country is coming to save us in the event of war. Aukus is a fantasy.
I doubt anyone in the Australian Government was thinking about “antipathy toward the EU” when they cancelled the deal with Naval Group… AUKUS may well be a fantasy, but so are assumptions like these. The fact of the matter was that Naval Group had never undertaken a foreign contract of that size and the program was already beset by huge problems even a couple years on from the original agreement.
Misquoting my reference to British antipathy to the EU does not support your claim that my comment is based on assumption. @@DeftPol
Have you studied the basic mechanics of French Subarines and the totally different and incredibly superior American and English Subarines?
@@DeftPolLies that have been proven false and stupid. Glad to see that you care enough about the issue to keep up with international defense policies and contracts.
@@just_an_old_Gunner I do not doubt Astutes and Virginias are superior to Suffrens (though Astutes have reliability problems with PWR2 reactor). But you identify the critical point. We have gone from building a regionally superior SSK to building the world's best (and most expensive) SSN. As a result we are cutting the rest of the ADF to ribbons to afford them. Defence seems incapable of understanding the concept of "fit for purpose". The French SSN would have been more than adequate, and half the cost of SSN AUKUS.
AUKUS net result is disarming Australia. Meanwhile same is happening in all 5Eyes and EU. Spooky.
you will not defend when they release the slaughter drones, you will hear the heavy bass American rapp music, that colonists tunes as they take over their new prison planet
Let's be honest,
america is the problem.
A problem, undoubtedly, but far from the only, or the biggest.
Who are the other problems?
@@Mr.Agateophile.Who sets the tone, both economically and militarily? Which other nation has the ability to force project anywhere on Earth to protect, maintain and expand its economic and geopolitical interests, and does so routinely? Which other nation is a bigger impediment to real action on anthropogenic global warming, pollution, resource depletion, social justice and corporate accountability? Which other nation has had a hand in destabilising and usurping as many democratically elected governments?
Can you name a nation that represents a bigger problem than the current global hegemon? It's about time people realised "pax americana" is an oxymoron. The evidence is clear and unequivocal, america is the single greatest threat to human kind and global peace, the second greatest threat is its collapse. This is the conundrum of the 21st century.
america is the problem.
@@space.youtubeEverything you said and frankly its risky to be in a heavily involved alliance. The name of the game is to keep it agreeable and light but wriggle out of any longer duration commitments, they lumber, they forget they dont care, just withdraw. Kissinger said it. "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous but to be a friend is fatal"
You are right. It has killed tens of millions of people in its unnecessary wars for the last 60 years. It's driven so many countries into dire poverty and despair. It's been a huge sucking parasite on the planet for too long.
This situation recalls when the US persuaded Switzerland to purchase F-35s, an amusing choice given that Switzerland bought a stealth fighter-bomber, specialized in deep strikes into fortified hostile territories, for air policing tasks.
F-35s are paperweight . America was raising money. That's why they forced the Swiss to buy it.
Just what is "China's challenge" which needs defeating? If you were China, faced with almost complete encirclement by US military bases, (some, perhaps even many with nuclear weapons,) and supported by a group of "allies" who have either been bribed, frightened of blackmailed into supporting the US, what would you do, sit on your hands, shrug and sing c'est la vie, or would you attempt to defend yourself. Ridiculous. The greatest danger to Australia and the rest of the world, including the US itself, is not China, but the anything but benign USA. It is long past time when Australia should stand up, shake of the dandruff of the US, ASPI, AUKUS and the ANZAC security hoax, stop cringing and think seriously rather than with its usual impotent, self-flagellating US dependent poor little me-ness.
This is what the US fears about China, that people see China doing no harm, while the US invades and dictates to whom they wish. The United Sociopaths have already invaded Australia.
It’s easy to understand it if you understand that it’s a race issue.
Australia is full of white supremacists at heart. In their view, the US is like them, and China is not. There’s no point debating or convincing racists, their mind is already set.
Hegemony. Miershimer.
Well written, mate.
China is not encircled by the United States and its allies. The core reason for Aukus is the immediate shortage of crew and good quality crews ( the USN has 3 quality levels for crew on destroyers or SSN say gold silver and bronze). Australia and the UK/RN it's is hoped will solve the immediate problem of manning USN SSN and by default USN CVN.The RN probably does have the capability to provide good crew and officers for USN warships and SSN almost immediately RN officers having commanded many RAN frigates, destroyers and Collins subs in recent years. Secondly Aukus reflects the failure of the US to fully integrate with its major non English speaking allies France,Germany and Japan because US military and intelligence agents no longer speak French,German and Japanese and therefore only trust and want to work with far less capable English speaking nations which have only a fraction of the military and Industrial capability Japan,France and Germany could achieve in 5 years.
The money wasted on nuclear submarines - could have built high speed rail connections (just like in Laos & Java - built by China [the imaginary "enemy"]). But the corrupt morrison and his low IQ liberal friends got high paying jobs working the yanks.
Albo owns AUKUS now
We could have simply bought the latest submarines from Japan, and built there they could have built them in record time compared to building them here. Albanese should have not fallen for ScoMao’s wedge politics and called his bluff.
$368 billion is a million dollars a day for the next thousand years. Spend a fifth of that on a fleet of state if the art conventional subs, & invest the rest in preserving & enhancing Australia & its residents. I'll leave you to compile the list...
$368 is a lot of money in total, but it’s a multi-decadal program and it’s actually not as much as other budget items… the NDIS alone is now costing about $90bn a year for instance. The problem with your alternative (and Hugh’s) is that you have the calculus wrong. Hugh’s view on the superiority of a ‘sea denial strategy’ that 45 smaller subs would represent hasn’t changed since the 2009 White Paper, which was a markedly different strategic environment in which China had no blue water navy and a fraction of its current surface fleet. China’s navy could now EASILY overwhelm a force of 45 smaller littoral defence submarines - especially for a country as massive as Australia and our very sparsely spread population. The bet Australia’s government - on both sides - has made is that the safe strategic threat is to embed our defence capabilities into the US’s much larger force to stop China at the first conflict, rather than decide to go neutral and wait until a potential overwhelming of the US fleet in the Pacific to just hold our breath and hope that China’s expansionist tendencies end at Taiwan.
Conventional subs aren’t up to the job
So this anti nuclear country decide to sign on building and using submarines with nuclear reactor propulsion without actually knowing anything about nuclear reactor or how handeling nuclear waste.
This choice cost hundreds billions to the Australian tax payer. The US and The UK will probably not be able to build the Australians subs in time The Collins retire. Great defense strategy.
The NetherLands just chose French Naval group for their subs , i'll bet they are going to get their subs before Australia while signing the contract 4 years later.
Indonesia too just chose naval group to build their submarines.
France will also assist Brazil with a nuclear submarine project. The advantage of French technology is that it uses low-enriched uranium, the same kind used by all nations in the medical field, eliminating the need for specific management.
As a French, I'm laughing. Australia decision about AUKUS is probabiy the worst political mistake since Irak war in 2003 😂
I think the way the US abandoned Afghanistan and so many Afghans who supported them, should indicate how reliable an ally they are. Also, for all its service to its US master, Sunak got sent back to Britain with his begging bowl empty when he needed a trade deal to help the UK out of the brexit hole it dug itself.
What would’ve been a better way for the US to handle Afghanistan?
Someone needs to remind the Hothis how powerful the British and US forces are.
😂😂😂
The Houthis lesson also tells us that will be too costly for China or anyone to invade fortress Australia. It is cheaper to use drones and satellite assisted weaponary and these seems to be more future relevant. Would have been better to invest in Huawei 5g, than nuke subs.😂😂
@@dr4jm China has zero interest in invading any country!
Scott Ritter makes some interesting commentary on this.
5 months on from your comment and the Houthis are still firing.
The conversation tells me that the Australia current position in the global will remain the same for at least 50 years.
In my view we as a distant, large but sparsely populated, resource rich country, need to suck up to one great power to maintain sovereignty in the short term, however we need to develop sovereign defence capability, underwater drones, anti air missiles, cheaper submarines etc. to make it unattractive for a great power to go to war with us.
Morrison's brainfart should've been cancelled as soon as Albo became PM.
correct
You need a brain to have a brainfart...🧠💨 🤪
yes we are dealing with smug traitors.
Note that Albo and Wong and Marles and Dutton are now all formally accused of aiding genocide.
History will judge Israel and Zionism, and all who supply weapons and provide support, just as we judge the perpetrators of 1940s holocaust genocide.
Any PM after Morrison would have no choice but to accept. To cancel AUKUS would be as big a fiasco as cancelling the French deal. It would cause significant harm to the US and UK relationship, which would be a rash thing to do when Australia has already become so embedded in that relationship, and even more risky at a time when China-Australian relations were at a low point.
It's also important to note AUKUS is much more than just nuclear submarines, it's a wide package of technology and equipment. To cancel your access to such cutting edge stuff would frankly be idiocy. Renegotiation is the best solution.
@@孙威-k5z What a load of ASPI drivel!!
Our Path To Peace And Prosperity Is To Not Be The Lackey Country - by Brett B Stokes, Adelaide 10Aug2023
A response to Rex Patrick's article titled "Death of Sovereignty: everyday Australians will pay the cost of US kowtowing, AUKUS, inevitable war".
To my fellow Australians, today 10th August 2023, it would seem we are locked in to disastrous war and cruel austerity, that we have no choice.
Rex Patrick called it yesterday.
The transparency warrior former senator ex submariner says war is inevitable.
I disagree.
Why do I disagree?
Because history, and people power.
Rex is 56, so in 1972 he was just 5.
The impact of the 1972 victory, and the path we took to get that victory, we were there and we know the reality, we oldies know.
Rex quotes from "All the way with LBJ" because he read it in history books.
I was there then, emerging into puberty at a time when censorship was very real.
Along with puberty came a political awakening, sparked by images from the war zone, images that burst through the censorship.
There was the young girl running from the burning petrol dropped on her by our side.
There was the street execution, bullet to the head, by the puppet Good Guy boss of the regime we were fighting to preserve.
There was the burning monk, sitting in the flames, dying to draw attention.
And there was the photo from the My Lai massacre, which featured on the quality printed pamphlet that went into letterboxes all over Adelaide.
There was blowback from some people who thought such letterboxing was treachery, that it was worth abuse and maybe a beating in response.
Slowly, the peace movement grew and grew.
And then we won a great victory, with the election of Gough Whitlam's mob in 1972.
Gough told the yanks where to go, and the people reaped the rewards of real reforms.
Nowadays the ALP is captured, controlled by war worshipping climate crims, smug traitors who choose war and austerity.
To me, Albo is Bob Santamaria unburied and updated.
Like Santamaria, Albo will cause the ALP to split.
Like Santamaria, Albo will be left with the right wing rump.
The real people remaining in the ALP will call out the Albo gang, soon, and there will be a split.
The "Real ALP" people will then work with the Greens, Adam Bandt will be PM and it will be a lot like 1972 again.
When will the spilt come?
When will we have Bandt PM and tell the yanks to eff off?
Hey, it took five long years back then before the internet, before mobile phones.
There were lots of people working to get lots more people involved.
We did face to face chats with friends, we did letterboxing.
There were long lead times before rallies and lots of promotion, little posters and pamphlets everywhere.
We grew the peace movement so large that we Stopped The Country To Stop The War.
And we did stop the war.
"Get active now"
blessed be all who challenge the war worshippers
This discussion is interesting, but it feels unbalanced without a Defence insider to rebut/challenge Hugh. I understand Hugh’s perspective and I’m also a little concerned about the scale, complexity and timelines of this program. But somehow this fiendishly complex program has received massive bipartisan buy-in. So what do they know that us outsiders don’t?
What I think Hugh misses with his argument for a ‘sea-denial’ strategy of buying 45 boats is that strategically it’s probably a harder task for our defence forces than attempting to nip Chinese expansionism in the bud by augmenting a larger and more capable US force. Back in 2009 when I first heard Hugh make this argument, this made some sense as the Chinese navy was still a fraction the size of the US’s and wasn’t yet a ‘blue water navy’ that could project power far beyond its coastline. The world has moved on though, and the Chinese navy today is both larger in total number of surface vessels than the US and at least partially a blue water navy.
In this new environment, 45 conventional powered subs just will not be effective in defending our shores in a world without the US navy patrolling the seas - especially for a coastline as staggeringly large as ours. That’s what this agreeable back and forth between Hugh and Ms Bennett misses. The strategic calculus being made is a pretty horrible one, but it’s basically down to “do we sit on the sidelines and hope the US prevail in a war over Taiwan and just hope China decides not to overwhelm us” (and make no mistake, 45 littoral combat subs would be easily overwhelmed), or “do we pick a side and hope that a combined effort between the US, us and other partners can help to maintain the current order”. On balance, I think there’s a strong argument for the later…
As for ASEAN and Malaysia’s President Ibrahim, what neither Hugh or Ms Bennett raise (or are perhaps unaware of) is that Beijing announced approximately $50bn in infrastructure investment in the past 12 months, so OF COURSE Malaysia isn’t going to take a side in this… but what about other countries in the region? Both also failed to point out that China’s belligerence has now gotten to a point that it has led to a previously unthinkable defence arrangement between South Korea and Japan. These details matter, yet you ignore them.
I figured the whole thing is about building a US sub base. Between the 3 nations they can be literally anywhere.
Our institutions can't provide housing.
$360 billion and no control over the submarine?
Who signed up to this deal?
I don't think this sum is only about the subs.
Here in France, our new class of nuclear attack subs cost 10 billions for 6 subs, and an estimated 50 billions during the course of the subs life.
Even if the Virginia class are 3 times more expensive, there is still a huge gap here.
Pretty sure there must be much more in this deal than just the subs.
@@MN-vz8qm This includes research. That's why the delivery time is in the decades.
@@JonKino828 the delivery time is in the decades because it must align with US/UK need of renewal.
And the numbers I gave included the R&D, obviously not simply the production.
@@MN-vz8qm Possibly some corruption. With these industrial military complex, they are there to make money.
@@JonKino828Morrison the former PM signed for this. Now australians will pay 3-4 times the initial budget, and will maybe receive their subs in 2060. Maybe. All while becoming USA dog.
Serve Australia right
Can someone explain to me what exactly is the threat that china brings to Australia?
You might find your answer in 1984
@@SCplayer1000 one could argue we're already on our way there without China
This is just my opinion, but I think Australia should just live where they live. Come up with a defense policy that has absolutely zero to do with “defending democracy”. Have no defense treaties with the USA. I’m serious. If you must have alliances, then pick your neighbor- Indonesia. The West is in terminal decline
In a war where they attempt to take Taiwan, various countries along the persian gulf-to-china trading route could choose to simply interdict chinese trade. Such countries along the route that "don't like china" to put it mildly are, India, Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines and we can certainly count America given the number of US bases stationed in half these countries. 75% of chinese oil consumption comes from such a trade route, along with almost half their food and most of the inputs required to grow their own too. Cutting it off subjects them to the largest de-industrialisation in human history and a qing-dynasty style famine, making the ability to shut down such a trade route, a deterrance that helps to prevent such a war and also makes it an issue china can't just ignore if they want to expand. One of the best places to cut off such trade would be the Malacca Strait, making it an area of interest that both sides will fight for in a war. If china gets control of it, Australia's self-sufficient in terms of food, but the rest is definitely a real risk for us too, and that's assuming they don't decide to attack military infrastructure here that we could choose to use to assist the US.
If China tries to take Taiwan or exert control in the south china sea, it's not like Australia can choose to "opt-out" (as stated above). Even if we could, the war would mean an instant recession and China being in control of the south china sea would mean there'd be nothing to stop them coercing us into trading with them for cents on the dollar or else they cut off our oil/electronics/steel by blocking trade. The Philippines are trying to televise and record as much as they can of the chinese coast guard intruding into their EEZ and attacking fishing and naval vessels and while Vietnam is trying to play both sides, their navy certainly has things to say about china going out of their way to disrupt their economy.
TL;DR, there's practically nothing to suggest we'd be left alone if china were to "win" such a war and plenty of past behaviour and warnings from china to suggest that they would not allow Australia as we know it to continue existing. The US, at least, has a decent track record of protecting trade and abiding by international law on the sea. There's a rulebook they point to and abide by that everyone else needs to follow (and has agreed to) too, and that's certainly a better deal than the arbitrary mercy of a dictator that, like putin, has told us exactly what he's going to do before ultimately following through.
It was an indirect threat. US has been maintaining the order for Australia for a long while. China is new, although non aggressive historically, you can never be 100% sure of them in the future. USA runs on a genius USD scam, and almost all were playing along. China threatened that game , thus became the primary threat to the game, and thus primacy of USA, and this endanger the order that guarantee of 'safety' to Australia. However, US shot itself in its foot, by confiscating all the points gained by Russia in the game. Now that terrified most players, and they wanted out, at least not bank completely on the 'scam'. I got tired , you make up the rest of the story.
" Fall apart of its own implausibility! ' Great quotable phrase.. The subservience of our policy to the American 'Military Industrial Complex is about time to be discontinued, reduced, scaled back even though we buy a lot of 'stuff' and have done, from the Yanks. We have to chart our own course, and supply our own facility ! Revisit the Japaneseum offer !
Forty conventional subs? Exactly where is the Navy going to find all the submariners for so many subs. They are flat out manning the few operational Collin’s class subs they have now.
Have they underestimated global boiling by 2060? A $1000 drone will take out the billion $ sub. Why not build drones?
You should stop reading comic books
Russia and Ukraine would disagree And lets watch the stone age Houthis vs the US navy.@@MrFastFarmer
Ghost Shark unmanned submarines.@@MrFastFarmer
@@11235but 25 million each but for what they will develop into is money well spent.
Great discussion. Leaves the question for Australia to ask itself as to what constitutes an enemy to Australia. Never mind the whom because what determines the whom. Economic stability underlies all stability, including those from security, because economics is the currency for all situations. Resorting to nuclear is a no brianor,because it is the ultimate decision to end all life. When Australia goes nuclear, even just in its submarine propulsion, it has gone nuclear. There is no such thing as being a little pregnant. You are committed. Wake up Australia. Don’t be paralysed from the likes of Morrison and his kind in our politics.
Who would man the subs? I'm not dying for this country. I can't even buy a house here.
It’ll be good if can see name of your visitor and the book you mentioned in the beginning, thank you.
Australia is an infantile country lacking in self confidence and the faith in its ability to behave like a truly sovereign country and it's not going to get better. By the time the 2030s and 2040s role around we're going to be so woke we'll be lucky to have a functioning army let alone the ability to operate a nuclear powered submarine fleet. I'm left of centre and progressive, but the trajectory of our society to defend itself internally, let alone internationally, is not encouraging.
What happens if US backs off in a war?
Trump camcelling both AUKUS and NATO would be wonderful.
For Russia and China, absolutely. The ceding of the globe to those two powers will surely be his lasting legacy should he win.
Thank you for a wonderful discussion which we’re just not hearing enough from informed people who have an alternative view to the government and media narrative.
Thank you for a very good discussion we need more of that.
Why don't we listen to the advice of Hon Paul Keating ?? Are we lacky of US ???
Yes😅
I've been to a few circus's but I've never seen a back flip like Hugh Whites' on Australia getting submarines.
Hopefully this question hasn’t already been asked and answered.
Q) Can the Boeing Orca class submarines which are basically drones, can they perform the same objectives the Collins class can do?
Ukraine has shown us all that the so called bigger and better is not necessary the answer and drowns can knock out capital marine vessels very easily. I agree that drone submarines would be a better option.
@@freethinker4991 just addressing the manning ability we have issues with currently.
The con with Orcas are their top speed.
But 5 Orcas recently cost the U.S. Navy $621m which certainly undermines the billions spent on AUKUS. Basic strategy can overcome their water speed issue.
@@JGB70I have been keeping track of the Ukraine and even cheaper drones have been sinking Russian ships. The Australian military have been going on to meany junkets paid for by the USA and now we are buying obsolete tech from the USA. I but money on it the Scomo will soon be siting on a USA board or some sort as his kickback for such a deal to screw the French.
They can perform some tasks, such as mine laying and EW, but they can't make tactically relevant decisions independently and don't carry the same sorts of weapons/offensive capabilities. "Autonomous" is a misnomer when discussing drones modern militaries are developing today. Drone platforms such as the MQ-28 Ghostbat are still commanded in real-time what to do by other aircraft such as F-35s or E-7s, they just don't need to be manually piloted 24-7 like an MQ-9, instead they can be told to "fly to this location and launch X weapon" or "jam this target". Such systems *need* a nearby (line of sight) "command centre" to exchange information with and make tactical decisions. For submarine drones, that means a manned submarine. You *could* have a surface ship perform the command role, but that undermines the stealth advantage sub-surface platforms provide.
In a conflict with China, neither side would be able to use manually-piloted drones as pervasively and successfully as, say, the Ukranians. The distances are too long for a FAB-500 warhead duct-taped a jet-ski engine and a starlink terminal to get to a target in the pacific most of the time and even if it did, the navies involved have actual EW capabilities and the systems and doctrine to easily localise and destroy such systems before they get close enough to be a threat. Similar drone systems are being used unsuccessfully against the US navy in the red sea currently.
TL;DR, drones *can* offer various advantages (mass of fires, performing especially dangerous tasks), but they're not some silver bullet that's going to fundamentally change how wars are fought and replace various types of manned platforms that already exist.
@@macster6984how do you come to that conclusion? most Drones have a crew driving them and can make the tactically relevant decisions.
a new $368Billions white elephant illusion? sequel's of Nolan movie "the Prestige" lol
What does Professor Hugh White know about Tafenoquine?
I am always mystified by AUKUS. What can it do that cannot be done by the US-UK and US-Australia alliance? UK and Australia are half the world apart and they are too weak to do anything by themselves. Other than being a totally useless organization to provide patronage, what can it do?
You've answered your own question: patronage. 😉
I fail to see how AUKUS subs provide value for money as Defence. What real Offence could they offer? What actual value is a Navy in the internet missile age? What defence alternatives were considered for the expected Subs cost? Would they really be a deterrent compared to a much larger and diversified airforce and missile force?
I’m a bit skeptical that Dr Shortis really understands the implications and seriousness of what White is talking about when she implies more diplomacy from Australia is what’s needed. Seriously?
I fully understand nuclear power and nuclear subs
Fascinatory.
Australia desperately needs a REAL DEMOCRATIC political party that is trusted and can defeat the combined efforts of LNP/Labour/Murdoch/Large Corporates from their planned corruption of Australian society and business. Can the Australia Institute be a catalyst for this?
What kind of RAN would Hugh White like to see? What kind of mix of vessel types would he advise to get.
Based on Ukraine war surface navies should be an endangered species
So with no negotiation and having taken the first offer presented by a private company we have decided to not attain a very important piece of equipment that provides multifaceted solutions to problems our nation is facing. We need nuclear power stations (if only to replace our coal fired ones in capitol cities at a cost of $17kw/hr instead of $32kw/hr, but all the cost is up front and before innovation of decommmissioning costs ie: space storage, space functions usage, or slow consumption use fo waste in the reactor to actual make it not produced) for these and for our country. We already have a reactor here between sydney and wollongong that produces energy, but is purpose built for the production of medical radioactive isotopes, progress or stay idle in a rut. When the company presented the cost it is balking. However, for functionality the about to be decommisssioned los angeles class is exactly what we need. If we ask for these as they decommission them and have them refueled instead we would save the US money, free up labour of theirs for their new class, have our submarines in 2 years time( two are in dock awaiting to be decommisssioned right now), and close the gap in time between our submarines due to change over from the collins, cost much less than brand new leading ship in class, loose nothing in strategic functionality (these are currently except, for the new US one replacing these, leading ship in class world wide) and have a proven, safe and reliable platform with a former owner well versed in it's use, maintenence, opperational gold standard practices, sonar, etc. Come on please go back to the table and negotiate for a better deal that helps them and ourselves. Incidentally deal with the state department or governemnt directly and not the company as they simply run their hands together and imagine a number they think they can get away with asking that we will pay. $300 billion for 6 subs in 20 years is more than what they are paying for their new subs, play the game and get the rewards. In this case it will be worth it despite the powerful coal lobby desperately speading missinformation.
"We need nuclear power stations" as much as a fish needs a bicycle
We don't need nuclear power. Australia is so energy abundant. Port Phillip Bay could be used as a tidal power station. The upper half of the WA coast has the largest stretch and highest range of tidal change. We have solar, we have wind we have so many options. Nuclear is wanted because those at the top and mines will profit.
US political elite ain't silly people. Their tactics is very easy, creating a boogeyman in every part of the world, e.g. Russia in Europe, China in Asia, Iran in Middle East, the rest of those countries living in that particular part would have a security demand, and then who they would look to? very obvious, and then automatically dependence are created. Very smart move, you have to admit.
His reasoning is unnecessarily wordy. The US is very short on Virginia class subs, and congress passed a law stating 'no submarines shall be produced for another country until the US has a full fleet.' It doesn't, and won't for the next 5 decades, therefore, AUS got conned.
I am to advocate for the creation of an🌎🌍 Indigenous remembrance day
AUKUS sub deal should be scrapped!!
Who is Ebony Bennett?
I might add that I don't get paid in RMB or Roubles.
aukus shines a light on oz politicians. can't make up my mind though, are they that stupid? that crooked? or that crazy?
it's a worry....
It doesnt help that both parties are owned by multinationals , penny wong is such a disappointment
Innovation for peace are less complicated than Innovation for wars..
Hmmmm.. pick a pathway for your investment.. from overall logical investment within a definition itself... hmmmm.
ScoMao cooked this up because of his temper tantrum of the French submarine deal getting behind schedule.
Not true my dear! Do not blame the French for a decision made by your prime minister with a bias
A somewhat pessimistic view, on all counts, regarding Australia as a whole and the Australian people's capability to learn... Yes it will be expensive, yes we will need to learn and transform our capabilities, but in the process we will necessarily become a far richer country.
Your claim to independence would have been a lot more credible without the "welcome to country."
I'm 100% over being welcomed to MY country by faux 20% black folk in third rate fancy dress. GROW UP Australia.
Good thing that cant be signed up for then.
L.n.p brain fart to cause australia economic grief.
Albo and Wong own AUKUS now
...
blame shifting is what people do nowadays.
Cup half empty guy - never heard him say anything positive. Hopefully though this doesn't come to pass as we can't afford them and ultimately they will distract attention and money from other technologies.
Taiwan has just launched their first homebuilt submarine and another 8 will follow. Australia can have more practical or affordable ways in defending American hegemony or west pacific status quo, whatever you name it.
Why don’t you give them their land back.
Which country like to be ordered around/comanded/lorded by USA?
If T-Rump is likely to cancel USAKA, I hope he gets elected.
tired of this welcome to the country.
I’m afraid I find his assessment of UK submarine construction totally inaccurate. There are manning problems in the Service but that has nothing to do with industry. The Astute and Dreadnought classes are both on time and in budget.
The Astute class suffered from wild overcosts (like unfortunately many UK armement programs).
But, at best, no place for any aussie subs…that is the problem for Australia!
@@olivier9946 UK yards wouldn’t be building Australian subs. Rolls Royce (an absolute world leader in nuclear reactor manufacturing) would be making the reactor units and a few other sub components would come from UK suppliers (which is already the case for hundreds of ships and submarines around the world including many used by Australia). Not sure what your point is here? There was never an option to build a genuine 100% indigenous design that’s why the previous one was French.
Naval group have sold a dozen scorpene in the last 25 years, they have already sold 4 additional barracudas to the Netherlands.
If actually getting their subs at a fair price on time and on reasonable terms was of any importance, considering neither the uk or us didn't even bid in the original competition, I'm pretty sure they should have went with the original short fin barracudas
@@guillaumefigarella1704 The UK and US didn’t bid because the original spec was for a conventionally powered design which UK and US industry haven’t had experience with in the last few decades. Scorpene has been successful on the export market but it’s worth mentioning not to any first rate navies, their success has been for countries looking for a solid budget friendly choice (which is a totally valid option) and the shortfin barracuda concept was a totally untested concept which the French themselves didn’t want. Astute and Virginia are both in service and absolutely world leading.
High White is a self declared expert - come media junkie that most Australians tend to ignore these days. He is clearly politically biased to the left, and is, in my opinion, no friend of the USA because he tends to oppose increased integration in the US alliance ‘plan of battle’, so to speak. Please folk - if you must listen to his opinions just take them with a grain of salt!
Turned off when yiu started with the welcome to country
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
@sleepy172 lol😂😂😂 it's over champ. Australians have had enough of this BS ....
Seems like d Anglo-Saxons are always talking about containment n conflict. Win-win n peace are ugly words?
Yaaawwn. Far out do you really need to welcome to country?
Rule AUKUS.... AUKID rules the seas. This is about lining up to control the seas and seeing who else will join. Global trade depends on secure shipping and USA is sick of doing themselves. Aukus will succeed if 2nd tier partners join and put skin in the game.
Lots of time for us to pivot whilst also showing committment to the PAX Aukusana.
I don't think the US are sick of it. I think they're preparing for oil supply to gradually deplete.
Australia duped again.
We should follow Ukraines example.
Care to elaborate?
I am all for recognitioning culture but does it have to be rammed home every time, surely it goes without saying that all reasonable humans will not discriminate and will respect? Does it make the announcing party feel good? What does it really do this constant moralizing to us adults? Would it not be better directed in places of education at a young age only and then allow us to grow in understanding by our acord? I feel it is so patronising and not trusting our ability to do the right thing. So thanks I did not listen to the rest of it.
Boomer would rather spend the money on more investment properties.
Ah yes, begin with the “land acknowledgment”. How catty, feminine, and passive aggressive we’ve all become
You should begin to learn Chinese now.
while the rest of us learned english for more than half a century. no harm learning second language
"3 white dudes". These commentators are idiots.
I don't get why Indonesia isn't getting the honey treatment not to forget a 200mil new market. To get to China U go through Indo waters. 50 bill would be better spent there shoring up our closest neighbours. They have a dislike for China from WW2 and before. In 2000 china was communist non capitalist now it's doing capitalism better than those who invented it. They have had a single head of state for centuries. China should be commended for it's effort to become better global citizens. It's all belt n road china scheming. It's really hard to repossess a bridge. In that same time we've spent 3 trillion being arseholes. We're not the good guys.