AU is militarily a joke. It is 100% dependent on the US for it's protection. Good god it still uses diesel powered subs for Christs sake. A total 100% complete JOKE. If not for the US military to protect it, every AU female would have been slobbing Russian or Chinese knob on a daily basis long ago.
@m n Much as I was totally against the French sub from the getgo, this ultra-right wing presentation has so skewered the facts as to be garbage. That the French sub program was ballooning out of control cost-wise is correct, to a point where they were certainly starting to make the nuclear options attractive, is correct. But the price comparison made is something of a joke - but then, the 'expert' can't even get his subs right when talking about the British and referred to their new attack subs as Trafalgars! That would be almost as laughable as us referring to our present fleet being made up of Oberons! I also have a contact who knows something about these cost breakdowns and told me that the figures often thrown about are a base figure that don't take into account the nuclear engines (that's extra) nor inflation - it's a 'now' dollar that will balloon out to wherever inflation takes the costs of each sub down the track. Furthermore, the host of the program was also very disingenuous when he referred to the Tomahawks as being nuclear-tipped - they may have that capability, but that's not what they're really carried for, as the US navy amply demonstrated in recent conflicts. Australia could certainly use them in a block IV variant of the Virginia, but mainly to carry the Block V version of the Tomahawk, which has been redesigned to give it back an anti-ship capability, which is exactly what Australia would need to defend its shores - it's not likely that we'd want to sail in close to China to launch Tomahawks at Chinese cities! I'm 200% behind the change in direction, not least with the growing fiasco NAVAL was making of the contract, but I do think the PM really botched the whole thing from a PR perspective and came across to the international community as a cross between an out of his depth country bumpkin and a used car salesman, when he should have made it clearer from Australia's perspective exactly why NAVAL and the French were making the contract extremely unpalatable and basically invited us to start looking elsewhere. I also think he could have made it clearer, in light of France's howling protests that we 'broke' the deal, that we simply used one of the escape clauses written into the agreement to step away, with appropriate moneys paid in penalty. Straight business. The other part to this joke of a program is the manner in which the smirking host and his guest spoke of the necessary infrastructure to deal with the nuclear engines. That is total BS or complete ignorance - from a supposed expert! As Morrison touched on, the British and American subs carry enough fuel in their engines to last the lifetime of the subs - 25 years in the case of the Astute, 33 years for the Virginia. That means Australian facilities or personnel never have to deal with refueling or handling of uranium - it's basically a closed-cell operation. Australia's naval personnel will simply be trained how to operate the engines, and come the end of the life cycle they''ll be returned to either the UK or the USA for dismantling and disposal of the spent uranium. For a country as touchy about anything nuclear, that's a key point, and Morrison knows that. The French submarines on the other hand run on low grade uranium and require refueling every 8 years, something that would have been total anathema to our government, both from a political view in terms of our potentially having to develop the technology and handling ourselves, or by having to go cap in hand to the French every 8 years to get it done. No way in hell you would ever want to leave strategic weapons at the whim of a foreign power as capricious and mercurial in temperament as the French. It's also why I think Morrison's been very slippery and somewhat disingenuous with the Australian public by using this whole scenario to backdoor the nuclear option on us without proper consultation, likely because he believed, probably rightly, that there'd be very serious objections raised, as there always has been. The nuclear-powered sub option was always the correct one for Australia, not least because we're bordered by three vast oceans and need to be able to patrol quickly and at length, not pissing along at walking pace beneath the surface to remain undetected, or ringing the bell for all to hear by chuffing along on the surface. I just think there could have been better ways of finally and openly getting around to addressing it, rather than the mess we signed up for with the French and the equally messy way we exited the deal and signed up for the alternative.
@m n Post 1 You are being extremely disingenuous, at the very least. 'Cost overruns are always common' - they are not when they become overblown long before the first sub even gets laid down for construction. You are either avoiding core issues, or are unaware of many factors involving Australia's problems with the French. One was that the costs didn't get tacked on after that fact regarding Australia's involvement with the construction. They were factored in when the French made their bid in accordance with Australia's requirements. In addition, NAVAL began shifting the percentage of construction in Australia over and over, lessening Australia's participation - do your homework, instead of giving opinions on the fly to try and gussy up France's side of things. Australia DID NOT approach the French and ask them to turn their Barracuda sub into a conventional sub for them, with all the inherent difficulties involved. The French, in competition with the Japanese and Germans in trying to win such a lucrative contract, claimed they could do it, and light of what has since transpired, clearly overstated their case - that's NOT on Australia, but the French for basically bullshitting Australia and themselves. Secondly, go look at the figures, instead of spouting out more crap - or did you somehow miss how much the figures had ballooned out for the 12 subs? So don't sit there and basically lie your face off about how the French subs are 'way cheaper' and only a fraction of the cost - that's a bald-faced lie - we were going to pay an outrageous amount of money for an inferior sub that doesn't match Australia's needs by any margin at all. As for being more recent - are you serious? It's part of a minuscule program - the Virginia Class is built on the foundations of decades of vastly superior US experience and goes through constant improvement. It's currently going through the Block V variant, and will undoubtedly go through more upgrades before completion of the program. By far your biggest lie is one of capability - that or you haven't got a clue and are just one more Frenchman popping up on Australian news forums with an axe to grind. I know military hardware - obviously you don't. And judging from your many other comments you are blissfully unaware of Australia's unique position and needs - what did you think, it's some small island in the Mediterranean? Diesel-electrics are ONLY good these days in terms of a littoral defense or patrol capacity - perfect for European countries like the Netherlands or Germany or Sweden with relatively small coastlines and strategic concerns that are much closer to home. Australia is an island continent with 6,000km more coastline than the USA and three vast oceans surrounding it. The main submarine base, which I'm sure you haven't got a clue about, is in Perth, the bottom left of the Australian continent. In a time of crisis, your 'wonderful' conventional Barracuda would be incapable - totally - of being able to get to the likely area of concern, our northern waters, underwater and stealthily at its 'magnificent' speed of 4 knots. Even if the batteries could last that long, it would take the best part of a week! Instead, it would have to sail at or near the surface most of the way - giving itself away totally as a stealth weapon - at its stellar top speed of 20 knots, screaming out "here we come" all the way. Then once they get there they could politely ask if the aggressor in question can look the other way while the sub descends to a suitable depth to 'hide'. You follow, or is that too much for you to grasp? Go pull up a map of Australia and figure out how far it is from Perth to Darwin by sea, then do the math. Another lie - it can do just about everything a Virginia can! Do you just make up all this stuff as you go along, or are you just some mouthpiece for NAVAL? A Virginia can get anywhere it needs to MUCH FASTER than a Barracuda, all while staying underwater. The only thing that can possibly give it away under such circumstances is thermal imaging of the wake via satellites. In terms of delivery, it's like the difference between someone on a bicycle and someone in a car, adding to which the car is invisible the whole way while the guy on the bike is ringing his bell the whole way. Secondly, the Virginias carry 12 Tomahawk missiles in vertical tubes, which, armed with Block V versions you certainly had no idea about, give the subs a lethal long range capability in terms of attacking surface ships, which is exactly what Australia would need. If it went with the Block V version of the Virginia, the capability extends out to 40 vertical tubes. And did I say long range? The Harpoon, fired through the Barracuda's torpedo tubes, has a max range of 150 miles, depending on the type used. The block V Tomahawk can reach out 'in excess' of 1,000 miles, which makes the Harpoon almost redundant by comparison. Not only does that mean that the Virginia's can attack an aggressor much more quickly and across a wider spectrum, but can do so from a safer, less detectable range. Two or three Virginia's stationed across Australia's northern waters, from Broom to Darwin to Cairns as an example of distance, would have a wide enough net between them to cover the entire range in theory - the entire fleet of 12 Barracudas Australia had on order couldn't do that with their Harpoon missiles. And that's without even touching on their torpedo capability as a second line of defense - they can carry more than twice as many Mark 48 torpedoes as the Barracuda. Furthermore, it's well documented that nuclear attack subs can stay on station/patrol for SEVEN times longer than a conventional sub, because of the speed with which they can get and stay on station, and because of their limitless fuel. For Australia, that's hugely significant. The ONLY thing your precious Barracudas have, like any modern diesel-electric, is extra stealth in very limited circumstances, circumstances that don't apply to Australia. You want one to quietly enter an enemy harbour to attack a sitting fleet? Or sit in a spot and wait for an aggressor force to basically sail in on top of it? Yep, that works, and that's the kind of scenario proponents like to crow about. The first scenario doesn't apply in Australia's case. As for the second, try doing that across a vast expanse of water like the Pacific! There's a reason why the entire US fleet of submarines is nuclear - because it's about applying a blue water defensive capability across a vast ocean, instead of waiting/hoping for an aggressor to enter littoral waters. Additionally, there's the fact that taking on the Virginia class (though that's not a given due to their program only being able to handle two subs being built at the same time, though they're looking at boosting it to three - for their own needs) would give us a clear-cut interoperability with the US fleet, as well as readily available repair facilities across the Pacific at need. There's also the other fact that in the short term Australia will likely need to lease refurbished Los Angeles class subs until the new ones are built, which means they'll be ideal for training purposes in terms of eventually converting over to the Virginia, if that's the way Australia goes. Even if they went with a version of the Astute, there's still a great deal of shared tech between the boats. As for the rationale behind our decision to go for the French submarine over the Japanese - seriously, where do you get such garbage? There were concerns about geometry - by and large the Japanese are shorter than Caucasians and their subs highlighted that fact is some areas - but of major concern was the range in terms of Australia's requirements for long-ranging patrols. There were also concerns about interoperability with the American tech that would go into them - the Americans made that clear. Most people, myself included, would have preferred the Japanese submarine, not least because they are renowned for their engineering, quality, and ability to deliver - aspects France is not known for - just ask our air force personnel who had to deal with the Mirage III jets we purchased from France. The two stupidest aspects to the decision was not going with nuclear in the first place, and buying into the idea that the French had a clue what they were talking about in terms of reconfiguring a nuclear submarine into a conventional version - that would not have been a problem with either the German or Japanese versions. The French were overwhelmed, realized they promised far more than they could deliver in terms of time and money, and basically tried, like you, to slough it off on to Australia. As for infrastructure, again you seem to have missed the point that it's already there, in Adelaide, via our work on the Collins class, so no, we weren't wallowing in ignorance or despair wondering how we were going to handle it. The French agreed to a certain amount and increasingly reneged on how much would be done in Australia in order to give industry back in France a bigger cut of the work. Go look at the terms of the contract, then look at where it was headed, and spare us the typical French self-rationalizing for breaking promises. Then I suggest you go look at provisions for the contract in terms of Australia exercising one of the opt-out clause inserted into the contract as a safeguard - they at least had the good sense to do that. Australia DID NOT break the contract - it's paid up for what has been done, realized the whole thing was turning into an impractical mess, and made a perfectly legal and common sense decision to get out on terms the French had agree to. There's a penalty clause in place for doing so, the country will pay up, end of story. But that's not how the French play, is it? They want to spit in our faces and talk about friendship and trust - this from the French!
Note 2 The joke of the day - that the French are not as mercurial as I make them out to be! Have you just met yourself, or missed the spoiled, brattish and malicious manner in which France has acted over the cancellation? Need it be pointed out how France reneged on its contract with the Russians over ships it built for them? The French took it upon themselves to make a moral decision, and that's not something Australia, or anyone, should ever leave themselves open to. Government's come and go, attitudes change. Not a hope Australia would ever have left itself open to France's capriciousness, and in case you missed it, genius, neither will it be left open in the case of the nuclear submarines, because the closed cell nature of the nuclear engines means that Australia will be entirely independent of either the UK or the USA on those terms, for the life of the subs, once it has them. Your point about a blank check? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds! You mean like the open-ended check the French thought they had and started hiking outrageously, long before they even started building the first sub? I'm an ex-pat Australian who's lived in the USA for many years, and I've also worked with the US military. I see their tech all the time, and while it's true that hardly any military contractor doesn't blow out costs, in US terms much of it stems from their aim of trying to maintain a cutting edge over others, as with their Ford class carriers, which have had enormous teething issues because they tried to put too much new tech into them. As you seem to have again conveniently missed in your self-serving rant, Australia has a long history of purchasing armaments from the USA, from aircraft, tanks, guns, etc, and by and large once the contracts have been signed they've delivered as agreed. The F-35 has been an exception in terms of delays, but that's something the US has also had to deal with. For any number of reasons, not least commonality of language and culture, Australians and Americans also work well together on a military level and there's far more interoperability than most people realize - I've been in the deserts of California and watched Australian F-18s training with the Americans. As for the treatise on Australia's strategic needs and concerns with regard to the USA - thanks, it's always gratifying coming on a Frenchman who thinks he knows more about Australia than Australians - arrogant much? Have you actually looked at a map of the Pacific lately? Do you even remotely know a thing about the country, its size and population base? Australia is the size of mainland USA, less Alaska, with a population base that's only marginally more than the state of Florida. We could have the population of France and still not be capable in either logistical or economic terms of defending the country on our own terms. Hence our dependence on the ANZUS alliance - you have heard of that, I assume? The tyranny of distance has always worked in our favour through much of our history. Not any more, with China's burgeoning naval fleet, a growing air force within hours of Australia's northern borders, and an on-ground military capability that would make our tiny army look like boy scouts by comparison. And you question why we look to our biggest friend and neighbour in the Pacific to help us in our time of need? If there is one thing Australia could bank on, it's that the USA would stand by the country in its time of need. Unlike France and its long-established pattern of developing amnesia with regard to past sacrifices from the likes of the British, Americans, Canadians, Australians and other allies, the USA and its people have long memories of who's been there for them in the past. Even in the midst of all this garbage involving AUKUS, the American media has been quick to point out how Australia has been its closest ally over the last hundred years, the only nation to stand side by side with it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc - they remember, they don't adopt the French what-have-you-done-for-us lately attitude of shitting on friends and former allies. And last I looked, France is a member of NATO, an ALLIANCE that was built up as a bulwark against Soviet/Russian aggression. So who are you to question our country seeking an alliance of our own that's relevant to our own sphere of influence? You also seem to have missed our recent agreement with Japan for defensive cooperation. You think the French are ever going to be there for us in our time of need, are you really that delusional or full of BS? What are you going to do, send a couple of your Barracuda subs down here and front China with your little fist waving in the air, saying "don't you dare touch the Australians!?" You'd be hard pressed finding a handful of Australians who'd believe France would do squat for Australia, because the French, despite past sacrifices from Australia on its behalf, would be the first to turn around and say that our concerns have nothing to do with them. The French have never done a thing for Australia in our entire history, absolutely zip. Our war dead lie in their tens of thousands across France and into Belgium, having given their lives in defense of your country. In return we have to deal with pompous prats like Macron and your foreign minister and ambassador, arrogantly screeching about trust and friendship and 'redefining' the terms of trust. Friendship? Trust? Coming from the French, that's about as revolting and disgusting a statement as it comes, but then no one does self-serving hypocrisy quite like the French. When it comes to the friendship stakes you and your country don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to looking us in the face and discussing the matter, and to have that f..kwit in the Élysée Palace insult Australia in such a manner is about as deplorable as it gets. What's even more outrageous is the French ambassador's claim that France needs to turn to other friends in the region like New Zealand. Firstly, New Zealand won't accept any of your vessels if they're nuclear armed or propelled - did you miss that key point? More importantly, the notion of France being a friend to New Zealand is a scream when one recalls that it wasn't that long ago that France sent agents into the country to bomb a Greenpeace vessel, killed an innocent civilian, then economically coerced the country to return the murderers back to France, where they were given medals and treated as heroes. As the old saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies? This is of course the same France that had no problems ignoring all the pleas and anger from friends in the Pacific region who kept asking it to cease and desist from its nuclear testing in the region. No, when people started protesting, it bombed and killed. In essence, you haven't really got much of a clue what you're talking about, or worse are just here to peddle whatever you can come up with to vent your spleen about France losing a contract that it basically shot itself in the foot over. Seriously, NAVAL was even shoving French vacation culture on Australia, with most of the staff disappearing for a month, despite all the increasing delays. I've gone into this in way more depth than needed, simply because I find it particularly revolting having a Frenchman trolling around on Australian news sites trying to bullshit France's case while insulting my country. You're like some football fan lurking around on rival fan forums - I wouldn't think of going on French news sites, using Google translate, and spitting out at the French over their insulting behaviour towards Australia - that's not what polite people do - but clearly you don't have a problem with it - but then that's the arrogance of the French, right? You can't even give a decent response, but like some wannabe comedian opt to cherry pick through my post, quote whatever you think suits, and apply your gormless self-stroking version of L'esprit de l'escalier - chortle - chortle - chortle. It's as lame as can be. See, as unprofessional and self-destructive as NAVAL has been, I could accept the company and the government trying to argue the point on those terms. But to have people like Macron, sleepy-eyed Le Drain, and that smug fat toad Thebault, as well as the French media, spit in Australian faces regarding issues of friendship and trust, is insulting on a level that goes way beyond the submarine contract. Macron and his cabinet might as well head out to Villers-Brettoneux, where most of Australia's war dead are buried in France, pull down their pants and piss all over the graves, then turn around and take a big fat dump on them. That's one of the things I find unforgivable in our sleazy excuse of a Prime Minister, that rather than walk around looking like a moron in the face of all the fallout, he should have stepped up and said something on behalf of past history and the insult to our sacrifice and fallen on behalf of France. I've been to places like Gallipoli, Villers-Brettoneax, and other places where Australians are buried, and I've always been left asking myself why so many Australians have died on foreign shores so far from home, fighting for the freedom of others. When I see the atrocious insults coming out of France, I ask the question even more, especially when the French love reminding Americans at every opportunity what they did for them 250 years ago. Repatriate our war dead back to Australia, and go build yourselves monument on the empty fields to your vanity, ego, and utter self-involvement. Australia has been a far greater friend to France than France ever has or will be in return.
um thats the patrol speeds mate they can sprint at 20+ knots under water the diesel boats only problems compared to a nuclear sub is strategic mobility really diesel boats are generally quieter as well
The British haven't made a Trafalgar Class submarine for over 30 years; I think he means their Astute Class ships which their rolling out at the moment.
The last Trafalger class was launched in early 90s, so 30 years is correct. UK.is building submarines for itself at the moment. The Virgina claa SSN looks much better value than a home grown diesel electric especially in the vastness of the Pacific. The pundit ought to know about Astute. French submarines are not as good as UK/US, but probably better than Chinese
They did look at SSNs but they forget the part of the French contract is the subs get built in Oz not overseas. You’re getting the ability to produce and maintain SSK subs. This is not cheap and of course no country wants to give you this they want all the work in their country.
The Australian navy could use a Trafalgar class sub for training crews etc. while waiting for a new sub to be built. It takes five years to build a nuclear sub. Although a smaller vessel than Astute class the engine room on the Trafalgar class SSNs is very similar so it would be a worthwhile training option.
@@stevepirie8130 you Are right about the startup costs of a submarine i dusty, but the biggest complaint they seem to have is that they are getting a sub that will be too slow, and underarms to survive in combat.
Which could be built in Australia by Australians for Australians. Australia needs to become reliant with its own drones, fighter aircraft, submarine industry and warship industry. Its going to take ww3 to wake Australia up and by then it will be too late.
@@agelesswisdom2341 there are not many countries that Britain would sell nuclear submarines to. Australia is certainly one of them. The Trafalgars out perform anything China can build. If brand new nukes are half the price of brand new diesel electrics then the cost of surplus British nukes must be lower still. And they can be at sea quickly. I thought only American politicians did things like that. Best wishes from the Sunshine State!
@@agelesswisdom2341 on some projects it makes sense to do joint projects , for example the uk makes 20-30% of the f35 we could build our own jet but in makes sense to do stuff with the states or joint ventures . I think the rest of the anglosphere ought to get into space and we could do other joint defence projects ,
Australia didnt just buy 12 subs, they bought an industry foot in the door because the deal is to manufacture them here...its a white label deal. The next 12 will cost little.
@@hamiltonski yes quite right there planning and sorting things out and we are incureging boys to be girls and buying Diesel subs 2.5 Times more expensive than nukes they have stelth we got woke and multicultural and they got to work. We are in for some punishment in the next 20 years that's for shore.
@@earthscannz5563 there waiting until the Americans are weaker the globalist sold out American workers for a very cheap price there financial system is based on paper money from two hundred years ago the power is in the east now They make everything for us . the white globalist still think they have the power but it has already moved east we are weak they are strong and white people are confused about their identity. We will be pushed. For the first time in a 1000 years and where not ready at all.
Yes, It is absolutely rediculous and embarrassing. We have been dudded big time. And we have most of the worlds uranium, and sell it to other countries so they can run their neuclear stuff... we do have 1 very very old reactor for medical products, and that's it. We are not happy. 🐨🦘🇭🇲
Ya as an American it scares the hell out of me, we depend on Australia having our back in that area of the world, never know what the Chinese will do next
Sons of Odin World of warships Australia has one of the best medical and scientific innovation rates per capita in the world, almost on par with Israel. The politicians are corrupt and the public doesn’t care about submarines so they get away with giving out huge contracts. I would argue Brexit has shown the brits to be the thickest but that’s just my opinion.
Australian Diesel subs can fool the American navy with ease. All our naval exercises show this. Nuclear subs would stick out like a sore thumb in anything but the ocean. Guess where our subs are deployed? Not the fucking deep. The Americans are completely incapable of stealth in the south east asian seas, which is why we have mutually supportive naval doctrines, we handle the seas, they handle the deep.
@@windradyne8724 That's why we have the Sea Wolf class. And if Australia wants to wait for the enemy to sail up to it's shores to start fighting, well, I guess being able to see your porch lights from the combat zone can be motivating. Good luck!
@@windradyne8724 You honestly believe the Malays and Indons are competent enough as to not fckup in ASW (assuming they have adequate capabilities). Heck, they couldn't even track a passenger plane that was off course.
That's what happens when you have weak P.C. idiots (anti nuclear) in charge of policy and procurement, and these morons are responsible for Australias "defence". If it weren't so serious it would be laughable as we are already the laughing stock of the world on this matter.
Everything in war takes damage, do we really want nuclear subs exploding with reactors in them in our waters? And you're very naive if you think they won't use these things.
The only way it makes sense is if this is deliberate-if you have commie traitors at the highest levels of government, selling out the Australian people to their Chinese masters.
Astto That's not how nuclear subs work. Their reactors do not explode, no matter what. And even if they somehow did, water, especially saltwater, is an excellent insulator for radiation.
Let me ge this straight. Our subs will be slower than a one finned turtle, louder than Godzilla's fart and has no modern weaponry. And I'll be a grand dad by the time they're made. About right? Oh yeah, and twice the price. Great.
Diesel Electic boats are not noisy, this isn't WW2 and they are great for operating in shallow waters, superior to Nuclear boats. But for Australia the requirement is for deepwater boats, you have the entire Pacific and Indian Oceans where Nuclear boats are better.
@@windradyne8724 When did that happen? Show me the written charter that says Australian navy does not have to play in the deep end of the pool. Also, a sub w/out the ability to launch stand off weapons, is going to be a dead boat.
@@richardm3023 Ah yes because a reconnaissance vessel needs to be able to bomb land targets. Leave the intelligence gathering to the intelligent mate. As for a written charter, I know of none, but this is the de facto state of our operations.
My friend if people understood the truth we world see a mass uprising all around the world . Fact is mate this planet has so much wealth at we all should all be living a happy life,but our so called leaders pocket 99% of it.
And it was Mr Turdball that did it. Talk about stupid. If Morrison had any balls he would tell the French exactly what to do with their subs. This deal is beyond stupid.
Surprised he mentioned the Trafalgar Class, UK stopped making them Years and Years ago, The Astute Class is still under construction here in the UK with a projected run of 7 boats
The Vanguard boats were solely for delivering submarine launched ballistic missiles. Australia is not allowed to be a nuclear power and doesn't want to be one. The closest British example to meet Australia's needs is the Astute class nuclear powered subs but for ideological reasons Australia had to choose a non-existent diesel electric boat that no sane country is building. The truth is that these make believe boats that Australia has ordered will never be built.
@peter D Australia should 100% be a nuclear power not because it wants to, but because it needs too with the rise of China .China would think before it acts before attacking Australia with nukes. Just imagine if Ukraine kept the nuclear arsenal. Russia would never had annexed part og Ukraine .
@peter D Australia needs a great defense because it will never have a great offense when it comes to the likes of China, that goes for my country Britain too, but we have that great defense. My friend don't think NATO will save you too, just remember the UK vs Argentina war . If my spelling is off I'm sorry, i have dyslexia.
@@frankyfourfingers8913 Developing a nuclear weapons capability is extremely expensive and politically difficult. However, diesel electric submarines make no sense and no nation with a credible submarine has built them in years. Australia certainly needs to go for nuclear powered submarines. The argument for nuclear powered aircraft carriers is far less clear because having a carrier with unlimited endurance with planes that need fuel.
@@frankyfourfingers8913 Its is gas turbine ( quiet humming noise compared to a diesel which is noisy/mechanic noise) coupled to a diesel engine unit in most MODERN submarines. This Gas turbine/diesel sub engines makes submarines travel faster and quieter under water and less detection from enemy sonar/radar systems. Gas turbine (aircraft engine modified) + diesel (surface ship,tank,truck engine modified) . The nuclear power systems is coupled to Gas turbine/diesel engines to provide electric power (for a long time) and thats its. Submarine is basically ship underwater.
These are nuclear reactor powered subs, nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Also the UK and US do not import uranium for their warheads, they already have vastly more HEU and PU than they could ever use. UK has enough for something like 20,000 warheads.
The Collins class is really good though, nothing but whingers in the Australian public. The Collins suffered less setbacks than any of the American programs, and still got blasted. Not to mention it has performed admirably in all naval exercises, being able to outmanoeuvre the American navy AND remain completely undetected. As for the program above, this moron (on this subject) wants nuclear subs for shallow sea operations (our naval doctrines are not for fighting on the ocean). Diesel Electrics are quieter than the nuclear subs, and why do we need cruise missiles? We have fucking wire guided torpedoes that can bring down almost any vessel in the pacific or indian ocean.
@@windradyne8724 .... I served on Collins class submarines and whilst quiet they are are a maintenance nightmare and just pure unreliable ie. the Hedemora diesels are pure junk, and as for wire guide torpedoes most of the time the wire breaks anyway very early into the launch...
The state of our country is down to too many decisions being made with peacetime optimism, not a wartime skepticism. Privatisation of infrastructure and utilities, lack of nuclear submarines, out of control immigration, rampant Chinese investment, universities doing research for Chinese military. Etc.
It’s like Aussies have just given up and are going through the motions. Like they think there’s no chance they can hold out against China. But the reality is if Australia took defense seriously then it could hold its own.
Conventional war is over between powers with nuclear weapons. Between them its electronic and economic. Even if all Australians were trained in guerilla warfare we could do little more than harass and piss off a Chinese invasion, couldn't stop it . But it will never come to that USA and China will just continue to slowly tighten the economic enslavement of Australia.
Every other sub producing nation didn’t like the Oz contract saying subs had to be built in Oz. France allowed it. They’re building up a sub base to give Aussies ability to produce and maintain their own fleet. If they bought any other you’d all be horrified at running costs you’d be held to ransom for. This deal was the best deal for you. I didn’t think the French SSK is or will be the best but it’s that home grown ability that’s worth it. The RAN of the late 21st century will be sailing in Oz made subs. Every $ spent will stay at home except for the US made gear and weapons you’ve insisted on.
Not SSK though, we got rid of ours for SSN decades ago. Not sure I’d have picked the French sub but they were only company to agree to build their infrastructure up and train future engineers. This is a good deal for Oz as long as the subs are as capable as advertised.
@@stevepirie8130 it’s french nothing is as advertised lol. and I think I’m reading it wrong.... but BAE only produce SSN subs the U.K. doesn’t use SSK anymore either. And BAE are already building the British city class stealth Frigates at there facility in OZ for OZ just surprised the Oz government wouldn’t go with who and what they know the astute is a new proven design ready to go. Why wait years for development. but whatever it’s Oz choice :/)
Top Table??? History would disagree with that statement. How many countries did it take for the Allies to defeat Germany in WW1??? The Russians did all the fighting and dying in WW2. But the USA did finally obtain the country it had always been after (Japan) which made the price more than worth while. Just remember the USA has never won a war of any size , should give you a bit think about.
@ANIMAL!!! I saw an article a few months ago by the Submarines for Australia group, it would cost around $300 mil to get out of the deal. Compared to $6.6 billlion per boat, $300 mil is a drop in the ocean. No pun intended.
I knew from the beginning those subs were going to be shite. French cars are abysmally unreliable and totally convoluted, hopeless to repair and parts are expensive as well as supply being unreliable. These subs will be an expensive joke.
@@amuxpatch2798 I'm not talking 60s and 70s, back then French cars were very reliable. Airbus are not the most desired plane to fly by pilots, the first to use fly by wire rudder system. I just wished we used Japanese, very reliable, reasonably priced, high technology, they always have repair requirements in mind and the engineering they do makes sense. French manufacturing always seems has to have that how you say, June es se qua, not something you want in a war situation. Hell I'm only a mechanic and I'm only speaking from my experience in vehicle repair and maintenance covering the last thirty years.
As an American I think it would be safe for me to say that America holds a special place for Australia and that the smart money would be to integrate with the u.s. Navy because Australia has always been there for us and we will always be there for Australia
@@muntee33 Commonwealth of Australia is under Washington DC securities and Investments. But the Chinese CCP are taking over as many countries as they can. Trump warned Scott Morrison not to deal with the Chinese CCP. Their economy is not strong and dependence on trade and investment may be troublesome. China CCP has militarized the South Seas, which are important shipping trade routes. US influence at this stage would be better than Chinese CCP investment and controlling influence. If our trade routes are threatened or Australia itself those subs are useless. They could have been run on thorium which the government mines and is far more efficient than nuclear.
@@combativeThinker Just mention it to Trump next time you see him. We'll be watching the skies. Oh by the way, you need to get rid a few characters yourself. Waiting for the AG reports and FISA.
Er yes the British do have the trafalgar class sub, and yeah it’s not bad. They also have the Astute class which is on par if not better than the Virginia class sub. Silly aussie
Trump old mate, what's the chance you sell us 2 nuke subs of your order of 9 with a further ongoing standing order for the next ten years for ten more and a nuclear Maintainance contract to change out the battery when it goes flat, cheers mate
Sounds like you should be in charge of Defence Procurement, we'd halve the cost and have them sooner and be more effective. No, this is Australia we can't have that, consider yourself chastised.
@@wyattfamily8997it is one thing I'm good at is spending money XD and as an ex-government worker and its why everything is handballed around the table NO one wants to approve anything or you approve something that you know your not going to be around when it turns pear-shaped
Not sure we have the construction capacity to accommodate foreign orders. Also, the equipment on the Astute is totally classified as top secret, a lot of it doesn’t officially exist. I’m not sure we’d be comfortable with it to other nations as it may vulnerable to espionage.
And not only all of that, they are now trying to work out how to fit Lockheed Martin electronics and weaponry into the French tubs. Splitting off from the original plan to have the same design unit as the Japanese (Cheaper and better built). The Turnbull-Shorten decision was a product of Chinese involvement - A great big win for the communist/fascist government.
Stay in Australia and you will experience the same "rulers" within the next 10 years. China owns 15 MILLION hectares of Australian agricultural land already and we have 1 MILLION Chinese living here. The "Silent Invasion" continues supported by our moronic politicians who care nothing for Australia or its people.
@@wyattfamily8997 You have got that about right. China has infiltrated your nation, just as they have all around the world. They seek to imbed themselves into our societies and our infrastructure. They will if not already invaded your politicians and weaken you to the point where you will need China's help just to stay afloat. Your Grand Kids will spit on your graves and curse you in Mandarin for allowing this to happen.
Seems to be a conversation between two people at a bus stop knowing little about the subject matter. Trafalgar class is out of service! Britain uses the Astute class and its as good as anything else in the world.
Its not as simple as it sounds , Nuclear subs cant go in for repairs in most overseas ports , Most Countries wont allow nuclear subs to use their facilities , and it costs a mint to decommission a nuclear sub , provisions along with crew fatigue play a big part of a subs time at sea, its not just refueling , plus they will be a much higher target for attack, I am not saying diesel over nuclear is better far from it... two sides to a coin so to speak ...
We need to get out of this shit deal as quickly as possible our National security should not be subject to the necessity of winning votes in south Australia.
The British Trafalgar class are being retired, the British now have the Astute class, which is more modern than the virgina class. Britain could build Australia an updated upholder/Victoria class sub, build the first one in the UK as facilities are built in Australia and move key personel to Australia or train Australians in the first sub, why France when your real closest allie has far more experience than the French and it'll be easier to get key personnel to relocate to Australia. Someone's making a lot of money from this. Even Germany do a good off the shelf sub.
British subs are the most advanced in the world ... the astute and dreadnought classes are 2nd to none ... the astute recently embarrassed the US navy so much that the Americans engaged BAE to build for them ... Australia if you want the best come to the British
And Columbia class is going to shit on astute. Virginia class subs are 20 years old. I would hope a newer British sub would be better... Literally whoever makes the newest sub is the most advanced.. don’t act like brits are special for it because they’re not. All it is is a game of timing when new class of ship comes out...
@@spidos1000 ... well of course they aren't but work has started ... 3 astutes in service and 1 awaiting trials with 3 more in various stages of build ...
@@TheUncertainKill ... The US navy recently could not detect the Astute and it surfaced right by the US admirals ship, by the end of the week the US admiral asked his British counter part to allow the US navy to detect the British sub because all the US sailors were demoralized ... he obliged ... now the US have engaged the British to build for them ... lol ... they know the best is in British hands ... Britain has the most professional military forces ... maybe not the size of the US, but pound for pound hands down better than the US military
Jean Lawley complete fake news. That never happened. And the US has never approached the red coats to build a sub for them. never. That alone shows you’re full of shit. And LOL. The audacity you have. British soldiers are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being pound for pound better soldiers. A shit load of US service members grow up shooting rifles and hunting learning how to track and ambush ffs. Many started training on rifles at 5 years old from veteran parents. What an absolute HILARIOUS statement you just made. Holy shit. Haven’t laughed so hard in years. The only thing you can say is that US special forces initially got their start and training from the SAS. Which is all irrelevant now in today’s technological battle space. They also change up their tactics regularly on their own. Brits get credit for inspiring the US to create its own special forces. That’s pretty much it.
many things wrong with some their statements here 1. He says near the start that the Virginia class will have cruise missiles, yes it will but not nuclear tipped. (that is reserved for Ohio class) 2. The cost of the submarines that we are getting are more expensive the Virginia class sure however the maintenance on Virginia class is HUGE with its nuclear reactors but the diesel electric submarine has a much lower maintenance cost compared to the Virginia class. So on the long term it will be cheaper 3. Australia just doesn't have any infrastructure to support nuclear submarines just look at the UK they barely have enough for their 4 nuclear subs, so when you got their new aircraft carriers they didn't go nuclear because they couldn't and it's the same for us in Australia. (only adding the price) 4. And if Australia not having any infrastructure for nuclear powered submarines, we would have to train nuclear specialist to maintain them, costing even more. So in the end going nuclear for our next generation submarines would cost billions more than going with the diesel electric. It just goes to show these short minded idiots don't know what they're talking about, how about looking beyond the stats and look further and maybe you will just see why we're picking the class of submarine. Now there is still some issues with the new submarine however going with the Virginia class is not the way to go. Go join the navy or have a extensive background the navy before going around saying our new submarine is crap
@@TheMagicJIZZ two things you're English is horrible and '7 astute and 4 nuclear weapon vanguard and 4 Trafalgar nuclear submarine' what the hell does that mean! They have four nuclear subs (that's their whole nuclear fleet) with a minimal ballistic missile load which isn't much and they still struggle to maintain that. There is no way we could manage 12 nuclear submarines- answer we couldn't
"Has americas navy just made australian politicians look stupid" ha ha ha ha ha ha,. ... I really don't have to finish this do I folks, just sayin' AUSTRALIA.
alexjohnward Well yes. It’s a tiny tiny advantage that can only be utilized for a short time as diesel boats still need to snorkel. But that’s fine, if you design a diesel boat from the ground up. But only a truly deranged maniac or certifiable idiot would attempt to take a sub designed to be nuclear powered and convert it to diesel. Even in the design phase. It’s complete stupidity. The entire boat is designed around the propulsion and power system. They are in no way Interchangeable. . You would have to be psychotic to try.
@@qasimmir7117 Which remains idiotic. A nuclear boat is entirely designed around the reactor. It’s not like going with a different engine option on your Ford pickup. Taking a nuclear hull, and downgrading the power plant to diesel, still leaves you with the much more expensive and overbuilt hull designed for nuclear. For a horribly inefficient boat. It’s literally pissing money away stupidly. It would probably end up cheaper to design a new diesel boat from the ground up. If you look at modern diesel boats vs nukes you quickly notice that they each have distinct shapes. Nuclear boats generally have that more teardrop or torpedo shape. Diesels tend to be that narrower fish shape. It’s because they have differing operational needs. Diesel boats because they need to spend time near or on the surface require better seakeeping characteristics at shallow depths. Nuclear subs rarely spend any time near the surface so have different seakeeping needs. Bolting a snorkel onto a hull designed to be nuclear is going to be the roughest riding boat ever built.
They can do much faster, modern SSK if fitted with the latest batteries can patrol 2 weeks without snorkelling. This means you have a very silent sub. Snorkelling with Diesel engines is when SSK are vulnerable. If you are the quietest sub you will get the first shots off normally which is a big deal in sub warfare. The big plus in the deal is Oz is getting the ability to build their own fleet. That’s why it’s expensive. Japan, U.K., USA, Germany and Sweden all offered subs but to build overseas. Btw the Soviet SSBN used to sail across the Pacific to launch positions at 3 kts by ‘skating’ across on top of the thermal layer. Torpedoes in service can do 70+ kts and still guide onto target so even SSN can’t outrun them.
Your scorn should be directed at the Turncoat (Turnball), the Globalist ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Australia along with the Greens and Labour, both gun shy of Nuclear energy.
@Ronove I'm not giving the current Liberals a pass merely pointing out how the current mess was arrived at. Meanwhile if we want green energy nuclear would seem to have the ability to provide realistic base loads; not ignoring the issue of waste which would still need to dealt with, the main drawback but insurmountable.
These are not missile subs. These are nuclear-powered subs whose role is to remain on station as sentinels in forward positions. Ideal for the threat scenario.
@@johnburwood1232 They do not. They are designed to attack enemy subs and ships. There role is as guards. Defensive up to point and then offensive, if necessary. Their advantage over diesel is the fuel which allows them to stay submerged for long periods and makes their rage virtually unlimited without surface supply, except for food. Desalination of seawater does not limit their range as with diesel subs.
Why can't Australia make subs? You've got kickass engineers. You've got kickass programmers. You've got pretty decent nuclear engineers -- although not a lot. You've got great manufacturing capacity -- or at least you did. And you've got a declining economy and surplus labor force. You just need a politician with balls.
I think we can all agree its time for canada australia new zealand and the UK to finally combined militaries as theres been calls for years, have each nation adapt to develop different ships etc, the UK is already very good at building frigates and destroyers, we have the most powerful frigates on earth and aussies and canadians have already ordered many of them.
Listen, I’m not Australian, and I think there’s things to be looked at here for sure. But there is so much bad V info on this sub deal it’s not funny. Nuclear boats are limited by supplies as well as maintenance requirements on other systems. No boat has truly unlimited endurance. And these subs will be a leap forward in capability from the Collins class boats. Any sub with a 21” tube can launch tomahawk, and with us combat systems, if think it would be straight forward if decided. Finally, there’s a huge difference in economy of scale compared to the Virginia class. And I’m really not sure that 3.6 billion per boat number comes close to development costs and repairs to the coatings that were bad on early boats. Oh, and French weapons have ALWAYS been disproportionally expensive.
I've always been baffled by the non nuke policy of our Oz cousins. Especially with China's expansionist policies and their behaviour in the South China Sea the threat to Australia and its natural resources could not be greater. The deterrent that nukes provide is immeasurable and strategically Australia couldn't defend itself due to its vastness when faced with a potential army equal almost to the entire population of Australia. They need the ability to strike back using ultimate force. The world is an increasingly dangerous place and you can't weaponise wind turbines and green policy documents. By way of correction, the UK Trafalgar class is 1990s technology, our latest ones are the Astute class which are 30% bigger and we are also developing the new Dreadnought class.
The UK have Trafalgar, Astute and Vanguard class nuclear subs. The last Swiftsure was retired a few years ago after an accident. The Aussies should have purchased US subs as they are designed for hot water conditions. Diesel Electric are not very good for modern warfare especially becuase batteries do not last very long when submerged and during an operational area you dont want to start up your diesels to charge the battery, marine diesels make a lot of smoke. This is a massive own goal. The problem of going nuclear for Australia is more to do with the infrastructure, it would cost a lot to build the assets required to cater for a nuclear sub. Refueling facilities, constant power supply with back ups to maintain cooling to the reactor when shut down, having the facilites to make the refined uranium for the reactor. etc etc. So it isnt that easy. Then there is nuclear training for the sailors. Complicated subject.
That guy is a quack, 230 mostly nuclear... Try they have 12, and having issues with 3( nuclear), only 59 !!!!! operational subs diesel and nuclear combined . Maybe less. You will have more than them soon. Strategically speaking, the US would give you the subs for free, for a US base in Aus. Just saying, I thought our news was bad.
This is unforgivable. With a three year head start, Australia should have their subs sooner and definitely less expensive. Aussies are wonderful people. They deserve better.
Yes, this interview has indeed aged very well. It was almost prophetic. Of course from what we know now, we can say that the difference buying French nuclear subs and US nuclear subs, is that the French subs would require refueling every 7 years and the US subs would last the length of their life span (35 years). So with the French subs, we would need a nuclear processing facility, which is something the Australian Labour Party would never support. Whereas with the US subs, we could avoid that and they would have bipartisan support.
As an American citizen I can say that Australia and it's people are top on the list of great allies.as this news channel shows Australia constantly pulls their own weight with matters regarding defense, NATO and, trade. I enjoy watching this news channel very much . The more I watch the more my belief that the Australian people are all around good people with excellent character and values!!
IN MY OPINION: We Yanks Love Australia because Australia and the United States have been excellent allies for OVER HALF A CENTURY! Furthermore, Australia has been and continues to be a more reliable, more trustworthy, more rational, more perceptive, more formidable, and more helpful strategic partner to our Nation than ANY of the European members of NATO. I have also noted, during the last half century, that members of the Australian military (especially your Army, Navy, and Special Forces) are significantly and overtly more capable of uncompromising determination to win with honor than European members of NATO and all our Asian allies with the exception of Japan and South Korea. There is also no allied country in Europe or Asia more reliable and trustworthy than Australia. Now, having stated my opinions and observations, I must also emphasise astonishment regarding the path Australia has chosen for it’s future undersea naval technology and defense architecture. The island continent of Australia, an eminent Nation in Asia, having endured the numerous issues/setbacks with strategic deployment of Collins Class attack submarines (spanning DECADES!) in both Littoral and Blue (deep) Waters of no less than THREE OCEANS of strategic significance to our world, cannot hope to defend it’s own undersea, sea-surface, and national border interests in a safe, reliable, and timely manner via utilisation of the most advanced conventionally powered submarines available today. We Americans do realise that Australia’s geographical situation, from a defensive-military perspective as well as the salient perspective of border security, is extraordinarily difficult. And it is obvious to any honest and rational person interested in military history and undersea technology that we Americans have a bias in favour of nuclear powered submarines. However, anyone capable of gleaning strategic information from a map of Australia and it’s surround will quickly appreciate Australia’s own need to patrol the vast and distant regions of ocean waters that impinge upon her shores; patrolling stealthily and safely for MANY WEEKS AT A TIME, ON STATION, IN EACH STRATEGIC AND VAST REGION OF OCEAN. At this time, the only platform capable of providing the necessary time on-station for each patrol, capable of powering the most effective and advanced sensors, capable of securing a safe and comfortable living space for Australian sailors, and capable of unequivocally defending Australia (and her highly skilled undersea specialists) in all four dimensions of battle space, is state-of-the-art nuclear-powered „fast-attack“ submarines. I am biased in favour of our Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines and would love to see our two countries continue the highest degree of interoperability and confidence by your country choosing the nuclear-powered / conventionally armed Virginia-class submarine. But Australia must start the process of procuring her ocean-going Blue Water + Littoral Water submarines NOW - because today is already significantly late compared to Australia‘s peer competitors. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinions and perspectives. I wish Australia peace - because only Peace insures Spiritual and material prosperity for every human being of our world, and every human being is our neighbor. Even when our neighbor elects to be an enemy, he/she remains a human being and, thus, of immense significance. I wish you calm seas, a steady wind, and bright stars in the night. Salome. Mögest du weiterhin im Frieden und SEIN der Schöpfung leben.
"Australia has been and continues to be a more reliable, more trustworthy, more rational, more perceptive, more formidable, and more helpful strategic partner to our Nation than ANY of the European members of NATO." Britain has done more fighting and more investing than Australia.
We have the same type of weak leaders (Military & political) in Australia like those who led the Vichy government in France during WW11. That's why we have been dudded in the sailboat speed submarines buy. History teaches weak leaders & weak countries get taken over. Be very clear this buy is sending a clear signal message to those dictators & oppressive countries that would harm Australia. The Australian Defense network is having a long weekend break for the next 30 years & the don't really care as long as they get their perks ,super & present prestige.
Someone got a good deal & it wasn’t the Australian people
Yeah, it was the Swedish. Australia just got screwed.
AU is militarily a joke. It is 100% dependent on the US for it's protection. Good god it still uses diesel powered subs for Christs sake. A total 100% complete JOKE. If not for the US military to protect it, every AU female would have been slobbing Russian or Chinese knob on a daily basis long ago.
Parlez Vous whatever them fucks speak
Parley Vous or whatever those arrogant fucks speak
@@tomw5693 dang it dude my sides.
This aged well. And the French are complaining? ! Ripping Australia off with a 1970’s technology and calling it modern. Lol.
looks like scomo watched this episode...lol
Didn't it just. It's almost as if there ware backhanders being paid to the decision makers.
@m n Much as I was totally against the French sub from the getgo, this ultra-right wing presentation has so skewered the facts as to be garbage.
That the French sub program was ballooning out of control cost-wise is correct, to a point where they were certainly starting to make the nuclear options attractive, is correct. But the price comparison made is something of a joke - but then, the 'expert' can't even get his subs right when talking about the British and referred to their new attack subs as Trafalgars! That would be almost as laughable as us referring to our present fleet being made up of Oberons!
I also have a contact who knows something about these cost breakdowns and told me that the figures often thrown about are a base figure that don't take into account the nuclear engines (that's extra) nor inflation - it's a 'now' dollar that will balloon out to wherever inflation takes the costs of each sub down the track.
Furthermore, the host of the program was also very disingenuous when he referred to the Tomahawks as being nuclear-tipped - they may have that capability, but that's not what they're really carried for, as the US navy amply demonstrated in recent conflicts. Australia could certainly use them in a block IV variant of the Virginia, but mainly to carry the Block V version of the Tomahawk, which has been redesigned to give it back an anti-ship capability, which is exactly what Australia would need to defend its shores - it's not likely that we'd want to sail in close to China to launch Tomahawks at Chinese cities!
I'm 200% behind the change in direction, not least with the growing fiasco NAVAL was making of the contract, but I do think the PM really botched the whole thing from a PR perspective and came across to the international community as a cross between an out of his depth country bumpkin and a used car salesman, when he should have made it clearer from Australia's perspective exactly why NAVAL and the French were making the contract extremely unpalatable and basically invited us to start looking elsewhere. I also think he could have made it clearer, in light of France's howling protests that we 'broke' the deal, that we simply used one of the escape clauses written into the agreement to step away, with appropriate moneys paid in penalty. Straight business.
The other part to this joke of a program is the manner in which the smirking host and his guest spoke of the necessary infrastructure to deal with the nuclear engines. That is total BS or complete ignorance - from a supposed expert! As Morrison touched on, the British and American subs carry enough fuel in their engines to last the lifetime of the subs - 25 years in the case of the Astute, 33 years for the Virginia. That means Australian facilities or personnel never have to deal with refueling or handling of uranium - it's basically a closed-cell operation. Australia's naval personnel will simply be trained how to operate the engines, and come the end of the life cycle they''ll be returned to either the UK or the USA for dismantling and disposal of the spent uranium. For a country as touchy about anything nuclear, that's a key point, and Morrison knows that. The French submarines on the other hand run on low grade uranium and require refueling every 8 years, something that would have been total anathema to our government, both from a political view in terms of our potentially having to develop the technology and handling ourselves, or by having to go cap in hand to the French every 8 years to get it done. No way in hell you would ever want to leave strategic weapons at the whim of a foreign power as capricious and mercurial in temperament as the French.
It's also why I think Morrison's been very slippery and somewhat disingenuous with the Australian public by using this whole scenario to backdoor the nuclear option on us without proper consultation, likely because he believed, probably rightly, that there'd be very serious objections raised, as there always has been. The nuclear-powered sub option was always the correct one for Australia, not least because we're bordered by three vast oceans and need to be able to patrol quickly and at length, not pissing along at walking pace beneath the surface to remain undetected, or ringing the bell for all to hear by chuffing along on the surface. I just think there could have been better ways of finally and openly getting around to addressing it, rather than the mess we signed up for with the French and the equally messy way we exited the deal and signed up for the alternative.
@m n Post 1
You are being extremely disingenuous, at the very least.
'Cost overruns are always common' - they are not when they become overblown long before the first sub even gets laid down for construction. You are either avoiding core issues, or are unaware of many factors involving Australia's problems with the French.
One was that the costs didn't get tacked on after that fact regarding Australia's involvement with the construction. They were factored in when the French made their bid in accordance with Australia's requirements. In addition, NAVAL began shifting the percentage of construction in Australia over and over, lessening Australia's participation - do your homework, instead of giving opinions on the fly to try and gussy up France's side of things. Australia DID NOT approach the French and ask them to turn their Barracuda sub into a conventional sub for them, with all the inherent difficulties involved. The French, in competition with the Japanese and Germans in trying to win such a lucrative contract, claimed they could do it, and light of what has since transpired, clearly overstated their case - that's NOT on Australia, but the French for basically bullshitting Australia and themselves.
Secondly, go look at the figures, instead of spouting out more crap - or did you somehow miss how much the figures had ballooned out for the 12 subs? So don't sit there and basically lie your face off about how the French subs are 'way cheaper' and only a fraction of the cost - that's a bald-faced lie - we were going to pay an outrageous amount of money for an inferior sub that doesn't match Australia's needs by any margin at all.
As for being more recent - are you serious? It's part of a minuscule program - the Virginia Class is built on the foundations of decades of vastly superior US experience and goes through constant improvement. It's currently going through the Block V variant, and will undoubtedly go through more upgrades before completion of the program.
By far your biggest lie is one of capability - that or you haven't got a clue and are just one more Frenchman popping up on Australian news forums with an axe to grind. I know military hardware - obviously you don't. And judging from your many other comments you are blissfully unaware of Australia's unique position and needs - what did you think, it's some small island in the Mediterranean? Diesel-electrics are ONLY good these days in terms of a littoral defense or patrol capacity - perfect for European countries like the Netherlands or Germany or Sweden with relatively small coastlines and strategic concerns that are much closer to home. Australia is an island continent with 6,000km more coastline than the USA and three vast oceans surrounding it. The main submarine base, which I'm sure you haven't got a clue about, is in Perth, the bottom left of the Australian continent. In a time of crisis, your 'wonderful' conventional Barracuda would be incapable - totally - of being able to get to the likely area of concern, our northern waters, underwater and stealthily at its 'magnificent' speed of 4 knots. Even if the batteries could last that long, it would take the best part of a week! Instead, it would have to sail at or near the surface most of the way - giving itself away totally as a stealth weapon - at its stellar top speed of 20 knots, screaming out "here we come" all the way. Then once they get there they could politely ask if the aggressor in question can look the other way while the sub descends to a suitable depth to 'hide'. You follow, or is that too much for you to grasp? Go pull up a map of Australia and figure out how far it is from Perth to Darwin by sea, then do the math.
Another lie - it can do just about everything a Virginia can! Do you just make up all this stuff as you go along, or are you just some mouthpiece for NAVAL? A Virginia can get anywhere it needs to MUCH FASTER than a Barracuda, all while staying underwater. The only thing that can possibly give it away under such circumstances is thermal imaging of the wake via satellites. In terms of delivery, it's like the difference between someone on a bicycle and someone in a car, adding to which the car is invisible the whole way while the guy on the bike is ringing his bell the whole way.
Secondly, the Virginias carry 12 Tomahawk missiles in vertical tubes, which, armed with Block V versions you certainly had no idea about, give the subs a lethal long range capability in terms of attacking surface ships, which is exactly what Australia would need. If it went with the Block V version of the Virginia, the capability extends out to 40 vertical tubes. And did I say long range? The Harpoon, fired through the Barracuda's torpedo tubes, has a max range of 150 miles, depending on the type used. The block V Tomahawk can reach out 'in excess' of 1,000 miles, which makes the Harpoon almost redundant by comparison. Not only does that mean that the Virginia's can attack an aggressor much more quickly and across a wider spectrum, but can do so from a safer, less detectable range. Two or three Virginia's stationed across Australia's northern waters, from Broom to Darwin to Cairns as an example of distance, would have a wide enough net between them to cover the entire range in theory - the entire fleet of 12 Barracudas Australia had on order couldn't do that with their Harpoon missiles. And that's without even touching on their torpedo capability as a second line of defense - they can carry more than twice as many Mark 48 torpedoes as the Barracuda.
Furthermore, it's well documented that nuclear attack subs can stay on station/patrol for SEVEN times longer than a conventional sub, because of the speed with which they can get and stay on station, and because of their limitless fuel. For Australia, that's hugely significant.
The ONLY thing your precious Barracudas have, like any modern diesel-electric, is extra stealth in very limited circumstances, circumstances that don't apply to Australia. You want one to quietly enter an enemy harbour to attack a sitting fleet? Or sit in a spot and wait for an aggressor force to basically sail in on top of it? Yep, that works, and that's the kind of scenario proponents like to crow about. The first scenario doesn't apply in Australia's case. As for the second, try doing that across a vast expanse of water like the Pacific! There's a reason why the entire US fleet of submarines is nuclear - because it's about applying a blue water defensive capability across a vast ocean, instead of waiting/hoping for an aggressor to enter littoral waters.
Additionally, there's the fact that taking on the Virginia class (though that's not a given due to their program only being able to handle two subs being built at the same time, though they're looking at boosting it to three - for their own needs) would give us a clear-cut interoperability with the US fleet, as well as readily available repair facilities across the Pacific at need.
There's also the other fact that in the short term Australia will likely need to lease refurbished Los Angeles class subs until the new ones are built, which means they'll be ideal for training purposes in terms of eventually converting over to the Virginia, if that's the way Australia goes. Even if they went with a version of the Astute, there's still a great deal of shared tech between the boats.
As for the rationale behind our decision to go for the French submarine over the Japanese - seriously, where do you get such garbage? There were concerns about geometry - by and large the Japanese are shorter than Caucasians and their subs highlighted that fact is some areas - but of major concern was the range in terms of Australia's requirements for long-ranging patrols. There were also concerns about interoperability with the American tech that would go into them - the Americans made that clear. Most people, myself included, would have preferred the Japanese submarine, not least because they are renowned for their engineering, quality, and ability to deliver - aspects France is not known for - just ask our air force personnel who had to deal with the Mirage III jets we purchased from France. The two stupidest aspects to the decision was not going with nuclear in the first place, and buying into the idea that the French had a clue what they were talking about in terms of reconfiguring a nuclear submarine into a conventional version - that would not have been a problem with either the German or Japanese versions. The French were overwhelmed, realized they promised far more than they could deliver in terms of time and money, and basically tried, like you, to slough it off on to Australia.
As for infrastructure, again you seem to have missed the point that it's already there, in Adelaide, via our work on the Collins class, so no, we weren't wallowing in ignorance or despair wondering how we were going to handle it. The French agreed to a certain amount and increasingly reneged on how much would be done in Australia in order to give industry back in France a bigger cut of the work. Go look at the terms of the contract, then look at where it was headed, and spare us the typical French self-rationalizing for breaking promises. Then I suggest you go look at provisions for the contract in terms of Australia exercising one of the opt-out clause inserted into the contract as a safeguard - they at least had the good sense to do that. Australia DID NOT break the contract - it's paid up for what has been done, realized the whole thing was turning into an impractical mess, and made a perfectly legal and common sense decision to get out on terms the French had agree to. There's a penalty clause in place for doing so, the country will pay up, end of story. But that's not how the French play, is it? They want to spit in our faces and talk about friendship and trust - this from the French!
Note 2
The joke of the day - that the French are not as mercurial as I make them out to be! Have you just met yourself, or missed the spoiled, brattish and malicious manner in which France has acted over the cancellation? Need it be pointed out how France reneged on its contract with the Russians over ships it built for them? The French took it upon themselves to make a moral decision, and that's not something Australia, or anyone, should ever leave themselves open to. Government's come and go, attitudes change. Not a hope Australia would ever have left itself open to France's capriciousness, and in case you missed it, genius, neither will it be left open in the case of the nuclear submarines, because the closed cell nature of the nuclear engines means that Australia will be entirely independent of either the UK or the USA on those terms, for the life of the subs, once it has them.
Your point about a blank check? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds! You mean like the open-ended check the French thought they had and started hiking outrageously, long before they even started building the first sub? I'm an ex-pat Australian who's lived in the USA for many years, and I've also worked with the US military. I see their tech all the time, and while it's true that hardly any military contractor doesn't blow out costs, in US terms much of it stems from their aim of trying to maintain a cutting edge over others, as with their Ford class carriers, which have had enormous teething issues because they tried to put too much new tech into them. As you seem to have again conveniently missed in your self-serving rant, Australia has a long history of purchasing armaments from the USA, from aircraft, tanks, guns, etc, and by and large once the contracts have been signed they've delivered as agreed. The F-35 has been an exception in terms of delays, but that's something the US has also had to deal with.
For any number of reasons, not least commonality of language and culture, Australians and Americans also work well together on a military level and there's far more interoperability than most people realize - I've been in the deserts of California and watched Australian F-18s training with the Americans.
As for the treatise on Australia's strategic needs and concerns with regard to the USA - thanks, it's always gratifying coming on a Frenchman who thinks he knows more about Australia than Australians - arrogant much? Have you actually looked at a map of the Pacific lately? Do you even remotely know a thing about the country, its size and population base? Australia is the size of mainland USA, less Alaska, with a population base that's only marginally more than the state of Florida. We could have the population of France and still not be capable in either logistical or economic terms of defending the country on our own terms. Hence our dependence on the ANZUS alliance - you have heard of that, I assume? The tyranny of distance has always worked in our favour through much of our history. Not any more, with China's burgeoning naval fleet, a growing air force within hours of Australia's northern borders, and an on-ground military capability that would make our tiny army look like boy scouts by comparison. And you question why we look to our biggest friend and neighbour in the Pacific to help us in our time of need? If there is one thing Australia could bank on, it's that the USA would stand by the country in its time of need. Unlike France and its long-established pattern of developing amnesia with regard to past sacrifices from the likes of the British, Americans, Canadians, Australians and other allies, the USA and its people have long memories of who's been there for them in the past. Even in the midst of all this garbage involving AUKUS, the American media has been quick to point out how Australia has been its closest ally over the last hundred years, the only nation to stand side by side with it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc - they remember, they don't adopt the French what-have-you-done-for-us lately attitude of shitting on friends and former allies. And last I looked, France is a member of NATO, an ALLIANCE that was built up as a bulwark against Soviet/Russian aggression. So who are you to question our country seeking an alliance of our own that's relevant to our own sphere of influence? You also seem to have missed our recent agreement with Japan for defensive cooperation.
You think the French are ever going to be there for us in our time of need, are you really that delusional or full of BS? What are you going to do, send a couple of your Barracuda subs down here and front China with your little fist waving in the air, saying "don't you dare touch the Australians!?" You'd be hard pressed finding a handful of Australians who'd believe France would do squat for Australia, because the French, despite past sacrifices from Australia on its behalf, would be the first to turn around and say that our concerns have nothing to do with them. The French have never done a thing for Australia in our entire history, absolutely zip. Our war dead lie in their tens of thousands across France and into Belgium, having given their lives in defense of your country. In return we have to deal with pompous prats like Macron and your foreign minister and ambassador, arrogantly screeching about trust and friendship and 'redefining' the terms of trust. Friendship? Trust? Coming from the French, that's about as revolting and disgusting a statement as it comes, but then no one does self-serving hypocrisy quite like the French. When it comes to the friendship stakes you and your country don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to looking us in the face and discussing the matter, and to have that f..kwit in the Élysée Palace insult Australia in such a manner is about as deplorable as it gets.
What's even more outrageous is the French ambassador's claim that France needs to turn to other friends in the region like New Zealand. Firstly, New Zealand won't accept any of your vessels if they're nuclear armed or propelled - did you miss that key point? More importantly, the notion of France being a friend to New Zealand is a scream when one recalls that it wasn't that long ago that France sent agents into the country to bomb a Greenpeace vessel, killed an innocent civilian, then economically coerced the country to return the murderers back to France, where they were given medals and treated as heroes. As the old saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies?
This is of course the same France that had no problems ignoring all the pleas and anger from friends in the Pacific region who kept asking it to cease and desist from its nuclear testing in the region. No, when people started protesting, it bombed and killed. In essence, you haven't really got much of a clue what you're talking about, or worse are just here to peddle whatever you can come up with to vent your spleen about France losing a contract that it basically shot itself in the foot over. Seriously, NAVAL was even shoving French vacation culture on Australia, with most of the staff disappearing for a month, despite all the increasing delays.
I've gone into this in way more depth than needed, simply because I find it particularly revolting having a Frenchman trolling around on Australian news sites trying to bullshit France's case while insulting my country. You're like some football fan lurking around on rival fan forums - I wouldn't think of going on French news sites, using Google translate, and spitting out at the French over their insulting behaviour towards Australia - that's not what polite people do - but clearly you don't have a problem with it - but then that's the arrogance of the French, right?
You can't even give a decent response, but like some wannabe comedian opt to cherry pick through my post, quote whatever you think suits, and apply your gormless self-stroking version of L'esprit de l'escalier - chortle - chortle - chortle. It's as lame as can be.
See, as unprofessional and self-destructive as NAVAL has been, I could accept the company and the government trying to argue the point on those terms. But to have people like Macron, sleepy-eyed Le Drain, and that smug fat toad Thebault, as well as the French media, spit in Australian faces regarding issues of friendship and trust, is insulting on a level that goes way beyond the submarine contract. Macron and his cabinet might as well head out to Villers-Brettoneux, where most of Australia's war dead are buried in France, pull down their pants and piss all over the graves, then turn around and take a big fat dump on them.
That's one of the things I find unforgivable in our sleazy excuse of a Prime Minister, that rather than walk around looking like a moron in the face of all the fallout, he should have stepped up and said something on behalf of past history and the insult to our sacrifice and fallen on behalf of France. I've been to places like Gallipoli, Villers-Brettoneax, and other places where Australians are buried, and I've always been left asking myself why so many Australians have died on foreign shores so far from home, fighting for the freedom of others. When I see the atrocious insults coming out of France, I ask the question even more, especially when the French love reminding Americans at every opportunity what they did for them 250 years ago. Repatriate our war dead back to Australia, and go build yourselves monument on the empty fields to your vanity, ego, and utter self-involvement. Australia has been a far greater friend to France than France ever has or will be in return.
4 knots underwater. German U-Boats in WW2 - 80 years ago -went at 5 knots underwater. Let that sink in
Imagine trying to defend the vast Australian borders at those speeds.
um thats the patrol speeds mate they can sprint at 20+ knots under water the diesel boats only problems compared to a nuclear sub is strategic mobility really diesel boats are generally quieter as well
by the way i fully support getting nuclear subs
If you want to be spotted and killed, go fast...all diesel subs hunt at slow speeds. Nuke subs only exist in order to keep up with nuke surface units.
@@toddhellyar4167 exactly stealth is the first thing you should think of in the submarine business
The British haven't made a Trafalgar Class submarine for over 30 years; I think he means their Astute Class ships which their rolling out at the moment.
The last Trafalger class was launched in early 90s, so 30 years is correct. UK.is building submarines for itself at the moment. The Virgina claa SSN looks much better value than a home grown diesel electric especially in the vastness of the Pacific. The pundit ought to know about Astute. French submarines are not as good as UK/US, but probably better than Chinese
They did look at SSNs but they forget the part of the French contract is the subs get built in Oz not overseas. You’re getting the ability to produce and maintain SSK subs. This is not cheap and of course no country wants to give you this they want all the work in their country.
The Australian navy could use a Trafalgar class sub for training crews etc. while waiting for a new sub to be built. It takes five years to build a nuclear sub. Although a smaller vessel than Astute class the engine room on the Trafalgar class SSNs is very similar so it would be a worthwhile training option.
And from the shielded reactor bulk head aft the asutute is the same reactor and machinery wise as the virginia.
@@stevepirie8130 you Are right about the startup costs of a submarine i dusty, but the biggest complaint they seem to have is that they are getting a sub that will be too slow, and underarms to survive in combat.
I am embarrassed for Australia.
We are idiots
I feel you man. My sis lives in AUS. Says it's getting more socialistic every year, taxes going up and the country being sold off to China.
@@ishizukahikaru643 They already onw 15 MILLION hectares of Australian agricultural land, and 1 MILLION live here.
Its a Disgrace buy American now .
@vachief they are not 5 times slower?
Well, actually, the British are fazing out the Trafalgar-class submarine. They are being replaced by the more advanced Astute-class subs.
Both nuclear powered.
Which could be built in Australia by Australians for Australians. Australia needs to become reliant with its own drones, fighter aircraft, submarine industry and warship industry. Its going to take ww3 to wake Australia up and by then it will be too late.
@@agelesswisdom2341 there are not many countries that Britain would sell nuclear submarines to. Australia is certainly one of them. The Trafalgars out perform anything China can build. If brand new nukes are half the price of brand new diesel electrics then the cost of surplus British nukes must be lower still. And they can be at sea quickly. I thought only American politicians did things like that.
Best wishes from the Sunshine State!
@@agelesswisdom2341 on some projects it makes sense to do joint projects , for example the uk makes 20-30% of the f35 we could build our own jet but in makes sense to do stuff with the states or joint ventures . I think the rest of the anglosphere ought to get into space and we could do other joint defence projects ,
The Brits are building the huge Dreadnought class for SLBM. It is insane Australia does not have nuclear powered and armed subs.
South Australia is going to make a solar powered submarine...
Lol
SA couldnt make a solar powered bbq.
I guess it better then hydro powered submarines.
Bring back the k class subs from the 1st world war good old coal powered nothing like letting off abit of steam 😂
Didn't the Irish already make one?
This is the worst trade deal, possibly in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.
Depends on which side you’re looking from 😎 🇺🇸
See if Don jr or Eric can fix the deal. I am sure they can.
Australia didnt just buy 12 subs, they bought an industry foot in the door because the deal is to manufacture them here...its a white label deal. The next 12 will cost little.
Its not a trade deal, or a giraffe or a Louis Vuitton bag. Its a defence and security pact - keep up.
When the Chinese sale into Sydney harbor OH wait they already have
what's stopping them now cobber? -
Andrew McKay when the Chinese do us over they won’t be using lubrication to ease the pain !
Buy American now.
@@hamiltonski yes quite right there planning and sorting things out and we are incureging boys to be girls and buying Diesel subs 2.5
Times more expensive than nukes they have stelth we got woke and multicultural and they got to work. We are in for some punishment in the next 20 years that's for shore.
@@earthscannz5563 there waiting until the Americans are weaker the globalist sold out American workers for a very cheap price there financial system is based on paper money from two hundred years ago the power is in the east now
They make everything for us . the white globalist still think they have the power but it has already moved east we are weak they are strong and white people are confused about their identity. We will be pushed. For the first time in a 1000 years and where not ready at all.
Even Theresa May could have got you a better deal than this.
🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If I didn't like Australia so much, I'd think this was hilarious.
Yes, It is absolutely rediculous and embarrassing.
We have been dudded big time.
And we have most of the worlds uranium, and sell it to other countries so they can run their neuclear stuff... we do have 1 very very old reactor for medical products, and that's it.
We are not happy.
🐨🦘🇭🇲
Aussies are the thickest white people on the planet after the yanks - they fully deserve this.
Ya as an American it scares the hell out of me, we depend on Australia having our back in that area of the world, never know what the Chinese will do next
@@sonsofodinworldofwarships7139 can't believe you just compared kings to the scum of the Earth
Sons of Odin World of warships Australia has one of the best medical and scientific innovation rates per capita in the world, almost on par with Israel. The politicians are corrupt and the public doesn’t care about submarines so they get away with giving out huge contracts. I would argue Brexit has shown the brits to be the thickest but that’s just my opinion.
The fact that France is now so upset is a bonus
Diesel subs are great.... If this was 1939.
Australian Diesel subs can fool the American navy with ease. All our naval exercises show this.
Nuclear subs would stick out like a sore thumb in anything but the ocean. Guess where our subs are deployed? Not the fucking deep. The Americans are completely incapable of stealth in the south east asian seas, which is why we have mutually supportive naval doctrines, we handle the seas, they handle the deep.
@@windradyne8724 That's why we have the Sea Wolf class. And if Australia wants to wait for the enemy to sail up to it's shores to start fighting, well, I guess being able to see your porch lights from the combat zone can be motivating. Good luck!
xpusostomos .. or 1916
@@richardm3023 You honestly believe the Sea Wolf can make it through the Strait of Malacca undetected? That's a big claim.
@@windradyne8724 You honestly believe the Malays and Indons are competent enough as to not fckup in ASW (assuming they have adequate capabilities). Heck, they couldn't even track a passenger plane that was off course.
We need a Parliamentary inquiry into this farce.
That's like asking the criminal to charge himself, run the court and sentence himself to prison.
This doesn’t make any sense.
That's what happens when you have weak P.C. idiots (anti nuclear) in charge of policy and procurement, and these morons are responsible for Australias "defence". If it weren't so serious it would be laughable as we are already the laughing stock of the world on this matter.
Everything in war takes damage, do we really want nuclear subs exploding with reactors in them in our waters? And you're very naive if you think they won't use these things.
We are part of the ‘5 eyes Alliance’ and due to our trading relationship with China, we would be considered a threat to some degree.
The only way it makes sense is if this is deliberate-if you have commie traitors at the highest levels of government, selling out the Australian people to their Chinese masters.
Astto
That's not how nuclear subs work. Their reactors do not explode, no matter what. And even if they somehow did, water, especially saltwater, is an excellent insulator for radiation.
6.6 billion $???? For a non-nuclear submarine without cruise missile? Maaaaaan, that is funny. :))))))))))
Have you ever seen the film ‘Pentagon Wars’?
@@qasimmir7117 No. Is it a documentary? Is it worth watching?
Let me ge this straight. Our subs will be slower than a one finned turtle, louder than Godzilla's fart and has no modern weaponry. And I'll be a grand dad by the time they're made. About right?
Oh yeah, and twice the price. Great.
Diesel Electic boats are not noisy, this isn't WW2 and they are great for operating in shallow waters, superior to Nuclear boats. But for Australia the requirement is for deepwater boats, you have the entire Pacific and Indian Oceans where Nuclear boats are better.
@@windradyne8724 When did that happen? Show me the written charter that says Australian navy does not have to play in the deep end of the pool. Also, a sub w/out the ability to launch stand off weapons, is going to be a dead boat.
@@richardm3023 Ah yes because a reconnaissance vessel needs to be able to bomb land targets. Leave the intelligence gathering to the intelligent mate. As for a written charter, I know of none, but this is the de facto state of our operations.
Yep that’s what it sounds like, & what makes it worse we’re paying for it!!
@@windradyne8724 I think you just cleared it all up nicely.
"We have been dudded right royaly" I'm Canadian and this is the best sentence I've ever heard in my life. 😂😂😂😂
People, this is about the under the table handshake .
100% and no show Boardroom positions where they get 100k + for
3 hours of meetings per year.
My friend if people understood the truth we world see a mass uprising all around the world . Fact is mate this planet has so much wealth at we all should all be living a happy life,but our so called leaders pocket 99% of it.
...and it's been like this for decades ....
I can't believe it continues 😯
Mr Heidelberg
You sound like a filthy commie to me.
And it was Mr Turdball that did it. Talk about stupid. If Morrison had any balls he would tell the French exactly what to do with their subs.
This deal is beyond stupid.
Surprised he mentioned the Trafalgar Class, UK stopped making them Years and Years ago, The Astute Class is still under construction here in the UK with a projected run of 7 boats
Yes I noticed that as well. I think our sub expert, Gary, is not as expert as he thinks.
@@jamesmaybury7992 Presumably just a slip of the toungue.
The retired Trafalgar Class would be a good boat for Australia or retired Los Angeles Class US boats.
The British vanguard destroys that Australian one and it has been active since 95 lol .
The Vanguard boats were solely for delivering submarine launched ballistic missiles. Australia is not allowed to be a nuclear power and doesn't want to be one. The closest British example to meet Australia's needs is the Astute class nuclear powered subs but for ideological reasons Australia had to choose a non-existent diesel electric boat that no sane country is building. The truth is that these make believe boats that Australia has ordered will never be built.
@peter D Australia should 100% be a nuclear power not because it wants to, but because it needs too with the rise of China .China would think before it acts before attacking Australia with nukes. Just imagine if Ukraine kept the nuclear arsenal. Russia would never had annexed part og Ukraine .
@peter D Australia needs a great defense because it will never have a great offense when it comes to the likes of China, that goes for my country Britain too, but we have that great defense. My friend don't think NATO will save you too, just remember the UK vs Argentina war . If my spelling is off I'm sorry, i have dyslexia.
@@frankyfourfingers8913 Developing a nuclear weapons capability is extremely expensive and politically difficult. However, diesel electric submarines make no sense and no nation with a credible submarine has built them in years. Australia certainly needs to go for nuclear powered submarines. The argument for nuclear powered aircraft carriers is far less clear because having a carrier with unlimited endurance with planes that need fuel.
@@frankyfourfingers8913 Its is gas turbine ( quiet humming noise compared to a diesel which is noisy/mechanic noise) coupled to a diesel engine unit in most MODERN submarines. This Gas turbine/diesel sub engines makes submarines travel faster and quieter under water and less detection from enemy sonar/radar systems. Gas turbine (aircraft engine modified) + diesel (surface ship,tank,truck engine modified) . The nuclear power systems is coupled to Gas turbine/diesel engines to provide electric power (for a long time) and thats its. Submarine is basically ship underwater.
Every deal we've ever made for military hardware has been a dud.
Until we are a nuclear power we will always live under the kindness of our allies.
@magadon ruferto That's what happens to beggar nations that refuse to invest in their own defenses.
And the big dogs will let u ? R u guys that naive
These are nuclear reactor powered subs, nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Also the UK and US do not import uranium for their warheads, they already have vastly more HEU and PU than they could ever use. UK has enough for something like 20,000 warheads.
Australia would need a good ol' civil war before it could even begin to walk down that path...
A country with 26 million inhabitants buying a load of 4 billion dollar submarines... Overkill. Outragous overkill.
The British have a sub and it’s not bad? Who is this clown? He can’t even get the class of sub right!
The Astute Class - Britain have planned to build 7 overall and have commissioned 3 and Completed 4.
Sounds like the "Collins Class Sub" cost debacle all over again. Just another waste of taxpayers $$$.
WE NEED AMERICAN SUBS NOW NOW NOW ITS A 50 BILLON DISGRACE. STOP THIS MADNESS.
@@mj-lb6er Yes its a Disgrace who going to Jail Just stop buying French.
The Collins class is really good though, nothing but whingers in the Australian public. The Collins suffered less setbacks than any of the American programs, and still got blasted. Not to mention it has performed admirably in all naval exercises, being able to outmanoeuvre the American navy AND remain completely undetected. As for the program above, this moron (on this subject) wants nuclear subs for shallow sea operations (our naval doctrines are not for fighting on the ocean). Diesel Electrics are quieter than the nuclear subs, and why do we need cruise missiles? We have fucking wire guided torpedoes that can bring down almost any vessel in the pacific or indian ocean.
@@windradyne8724 .... I served on Collins class submarines and whilst quiet they are are a maintenance nightmare and just pure unreliable ie. the Hedemora diesels are pure junk, and as for wire guide torpedoes most of the time the wire breaks anyway very early into the launch...
@@laeneel Yeah I've heard that before and it doesn't surprise me. As long as it's still good for ISR.
Why do they not want nuclear powered submarines? Is it that they fear anything nuclear?
the anti nuke hysteria in the 80's it seems....
glad they have seen the light - and a little (actually a LOT) surprised....
The state of our country is down to too many decisions being made with peacetime optimism, not a wartime skepticism.
Privatisation of infrastructure and utilities, lack of nuclear submarines, out of control immigration, rampant Chinese investment, universities doing research for Chinese military. Etc.
@Alex Mercer PPC shill? Hong Kong should be free and Taiwan is the true China.
It’s like Aussies have just given up and are going through the motions. Like they think there’s no chance they can hold out against China. But the reality is if Australia took defense seriously then it could hold its own.
Conventional war is over between powers with nuclear weapons. Between them its electronic and economic. Even if all Australians were trained in guerilla warfare we could do little more than harass and piss off a Chinese invasion, couldn't stop it . But it will never come to that USA and China will just continue to slowly tighten the economic enslavement of Australia.
@@Sanguinarius9999 You love it. AU's are born bootlickers. You've been tongue polishing your government's shoe leather since forever.
And us fools are paying for this deal of the century!! Lmao.
I'm a big fan of diesel subs but not when they cost more than nuclear ones. This is bloody ridiculous
Maybe we should invest in chain mail and swords
Why not just buy the British astute class ?
Every other sub producing nation didn’t like the Oz contract saying subs had to be built in Oz. France allowed it. They’re building up a sub base to give Aussies ability to produce and maintain their own fleet.
If they bought any other you’d all be horrified at running costs you’d be held to ransom for. This deal was the best deal for you. I didn’t think the French SSK is or will be the best but it’s that home grown ability that’s worth it.
The RAN of the late 21st century will be sailing in Oz made subs. Every $ spent will stay at home except for the US made gear and weapons you’ve insisted on.
@@stevepirie8130 but BAE systems have a faculty in Australia.... that’s who builds all of the UK’s surface and submerged fleets?
Not SSK though, we got rid of ours for SSN decades ago. Not sure I’d have picked the French sub but they were only company to agree to build their infrastructure up and train future engineers. This is a good deal for Oz as long as the subs are as capable as advertised.
@@stevepirie8130 it’s french nothing is as advertised lol.
and I think I’m reading it wrong.... but BAE only produce SSN subs the U.K. doesn’t use SSK anymore either. And BAE are already building the British city class stealth Frigates at there facility in OZ for OZ just surprised the Oz government wouldn’t go with who and what they know the astute is a new proven design ready to go. Why wait years for development. but whatever it’s Oz choice :/)
We know why this weird decision was made and why it given to SA don't we.
I prefer to think that Australia has just joined the top table with the UK, and USA on the ultimate home defense system. 🙂
Nobody will see it ever. 😉
Top Table??? History would disagree with that statement. How many countries did it take for the Allies to defeat Germany in WW1??? The Russians did all the fighting and dying in WW2. But the USA did finally obtain the country it had always been after (Japan) which made the price more than worth while. Just remember the USA has never won a war of any size , should give you a bit think about.
REFUND PLEASE
@ANIMAL!!! I saw an article a few months ago by the Submarines for Australia group, it would cost around $300 mil to get out of the deal. Compared to $6.6 billlion per boat, $300 mil is a drop in the ocean. No pun intended.
@ANIMAL!!! It's not France's fault that AU wants this ancient sub technology.
I knew from the beginning those subs were going to be shite.
French cars are abysmally unreliable and totally convoluted, hopeless to repair and parts are expensive as well as supply being unreliable.
These subs will be an expensive joke.
Well ,Aust airforce used French made mirages in 60/70/90s and QANTAS flies Airbus and build better subs than General Motor US subs by a mile.
@@amuxpatch2798 I'm not talking 60s and 70s, back then French cars were very reliable. Airbus are not the most desired plane to fly by pilots, the first to use fly by wire rudder system.
I just wished we used Japanese, very reliable, reasonably priced, high technology, they always have repair requirements in mind and the engineering they do makes sense.
French manufacturing always seems has to have that how you say, June es se qua, not something you want in a war situation.
Hell I'm only a mechanic and I'm only speaking from my experience in vehicle repair and maintenance covering the last thirty years.
Yeak british and australian cars are so much better ... :)
The greens in Australia will make sure you add wind power and a bunch of solar panels to your brand new subs.
probably add a mast and a few sails, but seriously I would like the head of the greens to £££££
NICE ONE ENJOYED YOUR HUMOUR
And the submariners will have to all peddle at the same time.
As an American I think it would be safe for me to say that America holds a special place for Australia and that the smart money would be to integrate with the u.s. Navy because Australia has always been there for us and we will always be there for Australia
We don't need any submarine toys.The enemy has already taken over.
They are about to go into a credit dive.
The U.S.? They took over long ago I’m afraid.
@@muntee33 Commonwealth of Australia is under Washington DC securities and Investments. But the Chinese CCP are taking over as many countries as they can. Trump warned Scott Morrison not to deal with the Chinese CCP. Their economy is not strong and dependence on trade and investment may be troublesome. China CCP has militarized the South Seas, which are important shipping trade routes. US influence at this stage would be better than Chinese CCP investment and controlling influence. If our trade routes are threatened or Australia itself those subs are useless. They could have been run on thorium which the government mines and is far more efficient than nuclear.
What y'all Aussies need are pallets of weapons airdropped by the U.S. so you can rise up and overthrow your tyrannical, corrupt, impotent government.
@@combativeThinker Just mention it to Trump next time you see him. We'll be watching the skies. Oh by the way, you need to get rid a few characters yourself. Waiting for the AG reports and FISA.
Er yes the British do have the trafalgar class sub, and yeah it’s not bad. They also have the Astute class which is on par if not better than the Virginia class sub.
Silly aussie
Trump old mate, what's the chance you sell us 2 nuke subs of your order of 9 with a further ongoing standing order for the next ten years for ten more and a nuclear Maintainance contract to change out the battery when it goes flat, cheers mate
Sounds like you should be in charge of Defence Procurement, we'd halve the cost and have them sooner and be more effective. No, this is Australia we can't have that, consider yourself chastised.
Hmmm ….. no, that's too logical
Not likely. They're building subs to have more subs. Not to make money. And money is hardly a problem for them in the first place.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 its why I asked nicely and trump is a businessman first XD
@@wyattfamily8997it is one thing I'm good at is spending money XD and as an ex-government worker and its why everything is handballed around the table NO one wants to approve anything or you approve something that you know your not going to be around when it turns pear-shaped
I personally believe our Ausie friends should have purchased our the UKs new Astute class nuk sub
Not sure we have the construction capacity to accommodate foreign orders. Also, the equipment on the Astute is totally classified as top secret, a lot of it doesn’t officially exist. I’m not sure we’d be comfortable with it to other nations as it may vulnerable to espionage.
And not only all of that, they are now trying to work out how to fit Lockheed Martin electronics and weaponry into the French tubs. Splitting off from the original plan to have the same design unit as the Japanese (Cheaper and better built). The Turnbull-Shorten decision was a product of Chinese involvement - A great big win for the communist/fascist government.
Are you blaming China for Australia's stupid decisions? Dah!
The greatest f-up in the history of Australian defence purchasing.
Of course Turnbull would have been involved.
Makes me feel like I should immigrate out of this badly led country, maybe to China.
Stay in Australia and you will experience the same "rulers" within the next 10 years. China owns 15 MILLION hectares of Australian agricultural land already and we have 1 MILLION Chinese living here. The "Silent Invasion" continues supported by our moronic politicians who care nothing for Australia or its people.
@@wyattfamily8997 You have got that about right. China has infiltrated your nation, just as they have all around the world. They seek to imbed themselves into our societies and our infrastructure. They will if not already invaded your politicians and weaken you to the point where you will need China's help just to stay afloat. Your Grand Kids will spit on your graves and curse you in Mandarin for allowing this to happen.
Why the Turbull government overturned Abbott's government's Japanese subs decision? They are conventional subs but at least they are cheap!
'Cheap' is not value when they are outclassed by something that isn't 'cheap'.It's humans who will have to operate these things.
It's just beyond words!
Seems to be a conversation between two people at a bus stop knowing little about the subject matter. Trafalgar class is out of service! Britain uses the Astute class and its as good as anything else in the world.
This disaster has now been aborted ................ THANK G_D !!
And the French are not happy chappies, they have quite some nerve considering how bad that deal was!
Its not as simple as it sounds , Nuclear subs cant go in for repairs in most overseas ports , Most Countries wont allow nuclear subs to use their facilities , and it costs a mint to decommission a nuclear sub , provisions along with crew fatigue play a big part of a subs time at sea, its not just refueling , plus they will be a much higher target for attack, I am not saying diesel over nuclear is better far from it... two sides to a coin so to speak ...
"Have you seen my stapler?"
NASA has it...they are repairing the lunar lander.
Guess we fixed it almost 2 years later
Seems like a good deal that one I wonder who getting the kick back!!!!
Based on the cost figures, I'd say, everyone!
We need to get out of this shit deal as quickly as possible our National security should not be subject to the necessity of winning votes in south Australia.
Just like in Canada, military procurement is about job creation, perks and politics.
As it is in the US
Now the mistake has been rectified.
" We have been dudded right royally."
The British Trafalgar class are being retired, the British now have the Astute class, which is more modern than the virgina class. Britain could build Australia an updated upholder/Victoria class sub, build the first one in the UK as facilities are built in Australia and move key personel to Australia or train Australians in the first sub, why France when your real closest allie has far more experience than the French and it'll be easier to get key personnel to relocate to Australia. Someone's making a lot of money from this. Even Germany do a good off the shelf sub.
British subs are the most advanced in the world ... the astute and dreadnought classes are 2nd to none ... the astute recently embarrassed the US navy so much that the Americans engaged BAE to build for them ... Australia if you want the best come to the British
Jean Lawley dreadnought isn’t in service yet. Still using vanguard.
And Columbia class is going to shit on astute. Virginia class subs are 20 years old. I would hope a newer British sub would be better... Literally whoever makes the newest sub is the most advanced.. don’t act like brits are special for it because they’re not. All it is is a game of timing when new class of ship comes out...
@@spidos1000 ... well of course they aren't but work has started ... 3 astutes in service and 1 awaiting trials with 3 more in various stages of build ...
@@TheUncertainKill ... The US navy recently could not detect the Astute and it surfaced right by the US admirals ship, by the end of the week the US admiral asked his British counter part to allow the US navy to detect the British sub because all the US sailors were demoralized ... he obliged ... now the US have engaged the British to build for them ... lol ... they know the best is in British hands ... Britain has the most professional military forces ... maybe not the size of the US, but pound for pound hands down better than the US military
Jean Lawley complete fake news. That never happened. And the US has never approached the red coats to build a sub for them. never. That alone shows you’re full of shit. And LOL. The audacity you have. British soldiers are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being pound for pound better soldiers. A shit load of US service members grow up shooting rifles and hunting learning how to track and ambush ffs. Many started training on rifles at 5 years old from veteran parents. What an absolute HILARIOUS statement you just made. Holy shit. Haven’t laughed so hard in years. The only thing you can say is that US special forces initially got their start and training from the SAS. Which is all irrelevant now in today’s technological battle space. They also change up their tactics regularly on their own. Brits get credit for inspiring the US to create its own special forces. That’s pretty much it.
It took more than one and a half year for Australian politicians to listen to this and react to it.
I just feel sad for the sailors thinking its a privilege to be aboard our high class subs. What a deathtrap.
many things wrong with some their statements here
1. He says near the start that the Virginia class will have cruise missiles, yes it will but not nuclear tipped. (that is reserved for Ohio class)
2. The cost of the submarines that we are getting are more expensive the Virginia class sure however the maintenance on Virginia class is HUGE with its nuclear reactors but the diesel electric submarine has a much lower maintenance cost compared to the Virginia class. So on the long term it will be cheaper
3. Australia just doesn't have any infrastructure to support nuclear submarines just look at the UK they barely have enough for their 4 nuclear subs, so when you got their new aircraft carriers they didn't go nuclear because they couldn't and it's the same for us in Australia. (only adding the price)
4. And if Australia not having any infrastructure for nuclear powered submarines, we would have to train nuclear specialist to maintain them, costing even more.
So in the end going nuclear for our next generation submarines would cost billions more than going with the diesel electric. It just goes to show these short minded idiots don't know what they're talking about, how about looking beyond the stats and look further and maybe you will just see why we're picking the class of submarine. Now there is still some issues with the new submarine however going with the Virginia class is not the way to go. Go join the navy or have a extensive background the navy before going around saying our new submarine is crap
We have the 7 astute and 4 nuclear weapon vanguard and 4 Trafalgar nuclear submarine. The UK has capacity clearly
@@TheMagicJIZZ two things you're English is horrible and '7 astute and 4 nuclear weapon vanguard and 4 Trafalgar nuclear submarine' what the hell does that mean!
They have four nuclear subs (that's their whole nuclear fleet) with a minimal ballistic missile load which isn't much and they still struggle to maintain that. There is no way we could manage 12 nuclear submarines- answer we couldn't
The British Astute class subs are the best by far buy these.
What a joke. Why can’t the Australians just buy subs from us then?
We have been dudded... big time.
We need US and UK ports and airforce bases in every Australian state and territories as well as NZ and Antartica.
Didn't my Canadian government buy some 30 year old fighter planes from you folks in Australia. They had propellers right.
"Has americas navy just made australian politicians look stupid" ha ha ha ha ha ha,.
... I really don't have to finish this do I folks, just sayin' AUSTRALIA.
The truth is Australia has been sleep walking for decades about its home security.
Why would you attempt to convert a nuclear sub to diesel? That’s insane.
It is the nuclear boogeyman, but there is an advantage that the diesel is quietest when running electric.
alexjohnward Well yes. It’s a tiny tiny advantage that can only be utilized for a short time as diesel boats still need to snorkel. But that’s fine, if you design a diesel boat from the ground up. But only a truly deranged maniac or certifiable idiot would attempt to take a sub designed to be nuclear powered and convert it to diesel. Even in the design phase. It’s complete stupidity. The entire boat is designed around the propulsion and power system. They are in no way Interchangeable. . You would have to be psychotic to try.
They technically not. I think that the Australian orders will be built from the ground up but with a diesel instead of a reactor and turbine set.
@@qasimmir7117 Which remains idiotic. A nuclear boat is entirely designed around the reactor. It’s not like going with a different engine option on your Ford pickup. Taking a nuclear hull, and downgrading the power plant to diesel, still leaves you with the much more expensive and overbuilt hull designed for nuclear. For a horribly inefficient boat. It’s literally pissing money away stupidly. It would probably end up cheaper to design a new diesel boat from the ground up. If you look at modern diesel boats vs nukes you quickly notice that they each have distinct shapes. Nuclear boats generally have that more teardrop or torpedo shape. Diesels tend to be that narrower fish shape. It’s because they have differing operational needs. Diesel boats because they need to spend time near or on the surface require better seakeeping characteristics at shallow depths. Nuclear subs rarely spend any time near the surface so have different seakeeping needs. Bolting a snorkel onto a hull designed to be nuclear is going to be the roughest riding boat ever built.
Ridiculous
This is Christopher Pyne’s legacy.
Australia is vast and along way away from everything. Electric at 4kts will not work!!!
They can do much faster, modern SSK if fitted with the latest batteries can patrol 2 weeks without snorkelling. This means you have a very silent sub. Snorkelling with Diesel engines is when SSK are vulnerable. If you are the quietest sub you will get the first shots off normally which is a big deal in sub warfare.
The big plus in the deal is Oz is getting the ability to build their own fleet. That’s why it’s expensive. Japan, U.K., USA, Germany and Sweden all offered subs but to build overseas.
Btw the Soviet SSBN used to sail across the Pacific to launch positions at 3 kts by ‘skating’ across on top of the thermal layer. Torpedoes in service can do 70+ kts and still guide onto target so even SSN can’t outrun them.
No sh-t Sherlock. I hope this brings down ScoMo's Govt.
Your scorn should be directed at the Turncoat (Turnball), the Globalist ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Australia along with the Greens and Labour, both gun shy of Nuclear energy.
@Ronove I'm not giving the current Liberals a pass merely pointing out how the current mess was arrived at. Meanwhile if we want green energy nuclear would seem to have the ability to provide realistic base loads; not ignoring the issue of waste which would still need to dealt with, the main drawback but insurmountable.
Geez Brian, keep up with current affairs. We should not have to keep explaining stuff to the lefties.
Nuclear phobia
These are not missile subs. These are nuclear-powered subs whose role is to remain on station as sentinels in forward positions. Ideal for the threat scenario.
I sincerely hope for Australia's sake that the submarines supplied under the AUKUS pact have the ability to launch nuclear weapons.
@@johnburwood1232 They do not. They are designed to attack enemy subs and ships. There role is as guards. Defensive up to point and then offensive, if necessary. Their advantage over diesel is the fuel which allows them to stay submerged for long periods and makes their rage virtually unlimited without surface supply, except for food.
Desalination of seawater does not limit their range as with diesel subs.
@@johnburwood1232 no.. they're just hunter subs to deter a foreign navy... the important thing is they dont have to surface every 24hrs.
Turnbull isn't an idiot. He's a saboteur.
Maybe build Indian ocean solar hyper charger as pit stops
0:50 Is it supposed to say ‘competition’ on the graphic or ‘completion?’
New national slogan “all Russians welcome”
You know , down under has taken on a whole new meaning for me .
I heard Germany is doing a buy one get one free on all U boats.
YES UNDER WATER BOTTEN 1936 MODLES
Gary Johnston wins in the end! Give this man a medal!
look on the bright side , at least the feminists are probably happy
Why can't Australia make subs? You've got kickass engineers. You've got kickass programmers. You've got pretty decent nuclear engineers -- although not a lot. You've got great manufacturing capacity -- or at least you did. And you've got a declining economy and surplus labor force. You just need a politician with balls.
There is a worse deal - the F-35
There needs to be a royal commission into the way defence makes purchases
I think we can all agree its time for canada australia new zealand and the UK to finally combined militaries as theres been calls for years, have each nation adapt to develop different ships etc, the UK is already very good at building frigates and destroyers, we have the most powerful frigates on earth and aussies and canadians have already ordered many of them.
Country with largest deposits radioactive materials builds diesel subs... wtf?
Trafalgar !!!!, Astute Class is on par with the Virginia Class if not better?
Fair go our politicians have always been stupid.
Listen, I’m not Australian, and I think there’s things to be looked at here for sure. But there is so much bad V info on this sub deal it’s not funny. Nuclear boats are limited by supplies as well as maintenance requirements on other systems. No boat has truly unlimited endurance. And these subs will be a leap forward in capability from the Collins class boats. Any sub with a 21” tube can launch tomahawk, and with us combat systems, if think it would be straight forward if decided. Finally, there’s a huge difference in economy of scale compared to the Virginia class. And I’m really not sure that 3.6 billion per boat number comes close to development costs and repairs to the coatings that were bad on early boats.
Oh, and French weapons have ALWAYS been disproportionally expensive.
I've always been baffled by the non nuke policy of our Oz cousins. Especially with China's expansionist policies and their behaviour in the South China Sea the threat to Australia and its natural resources could not be greater. The deterrent that nukes provide is immeasurable and strategically Australia couldn't defend itself due to its vastness when faced with a potential army equal almost to the entire population of Australia. They need the ability to strike back using ultimate force. The world is an increasingly dangerous place and you can't weaponise wind turbines and green policy documents.
By way of correction, the UK Trafalgar class is 1990s technology, our latest ones are the Astute class which are 30% bigger and we are also developing the new Dreadnought class.
America has economies of scale Andrew you fool. It has a huge weapons industry. Australia does not.
The UK have Trafalgar, Astute and Vanguard class nuclear subs. The last Swiftsure was retired a few years ago after an accident.
The Aussies should have purchased US subs as they are designed for hot water conditions.
Diesel Electric are not very good for modern warfare especially becuase batteries do not last very long when submerged and during an operational area you dont want to start up your diesels to charge the battery, marine diesels make a lot of smoke. This is a massive own goal.
The problem of going nuclear for Australia is more to do with the infrastructure, it would cost a lot to build the assets required to cater for a nuclear sub. Refueling facilities, constant power supply with back ups to maintain cooling to the reactor when shut down, having the facilites to make the refined uranium for the reactor. etc etc. So it isnt that easy. Then there is nuclear training for the sailors. Complicated subject.
That guy is a quack, 230 mostly nuclear... Try they have 12, and having issues with 3( nuclear), only 59 !!!!! operational subs diesel and nuclear combined . Maybe less. You will have more than them soon. Strategically speaking, the US would give you the subs for free, for a US base in Aus. Just saying, I thought our news was bad.
The Aussies have always fought bravely and I would be happy to see them riding in US Tech.
yup, US nuclear-powered subs are coming our way ;)
This is unforgivable. With a three year head start, Australia should have their subs sooner and definitely less expensive. Aussies are wonderful people. They deserve better.
Yes, this interview has indeed aged very well. It was almost prophetic. Of course from what we know now, we can say that the difference buying French nuclear subs and US nuclear subs, is that the French subs would require refueling every 7 years and the US subs would last the length of their life span (35 years). So with the French subs, we would need a nuclear processing facility, which is something the Australian Labour Party would never support. Whereas with the US subs, we could avoid that and they would have bipartisan support.
As an American citizen I can say that Australia and it's people are top on the list of great allies.as this news channel shows Australia constantly pulls their own weight with matters regarding defense, NATO and, trade.
I enjoy watching this news channel very much . The more I watch the more my belief that the Australian people are all around good people with excellent character and values!!
Why don't we buy subs from the Chinese?
IN MY OPINION:
We Yanks Love Australia because Australia and the United States have been excellent allies for OVER HALF A CENTURY! Furthermore, Australia has been and continues to be a more reliable, more trustworthy, more rational, more perceptive, more formidable, and more helpful strategic partner to our Nation than ANY of the European members of NATO. I have also noted, during the last half century, that members of the Australian military (especially your Army, Navy, and Special Forces) are significantly and overtly more capable of uncompromising determination to win with honor than European members of NATO and all our Asian allies with the exception of Japan and South Korea. There is also no allied country in Europe or Asia more reliable and trustworthy than Australia.
Now, having stated my opinions and observations, I must also emphasise astonishment regarding the path Australia has chosen for it’s future undersea naval technology and defense architecture. The island continent of Australia, an eminent Nation in Asia, having endured the numerous issues/setbacks with strategic deployment of Collins Class attack submarines (spanning DECADES!) in both Littoral and Blue (deep) Waters of no less than THREE OCEANS of strategic significance to our world, cannot hope to defend it’s own undersea, sea-surface, and national border interests in a safe, reliable, and timely manner via utilisation of the most advanced conventionally powered submarines available today. We Americans do realise that Australia’s geographical situation, from a defensive-military perspective as well as the salient perspective of border security, is extraordinarily difficult. And it is obvious to any honest and rational person interested in military history and undersea technology that we Americans have a bias in favour of nuclear powered submarines. However, anyone capable of gleaning strategic information from a map of Australia and it’s surround will quickly appreciate Australia’s own need to patrol the vast and distant regions of ocean waters that impinge upon her shores; patrolling stealthily and safely for MANY WEEKS AT A TIME, ON STATION, IN EACH STRATEGIC AND VAST REGION OF OCEAN.
At this time, the only platform capable of providing the necessary time on-station for each patrol, capable of powering the most effective and advanced sensors, capable of securing a safe and comfortable living space for Australian sailors, and capable of unequivocally defending Australia (and her highly skilled undersea specialists) in all four dimensions of battle space, is state-of-the-art nuclear-powered „fast-attack“ submarines. I am biased in favour of our Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines and would love to see our two countries continue the highest degree of interoperability and confidence by your country choosing the nuclear-powered / conventionally armed Virginia-class submarine. But Australia must start the process of procuring her ocean-going Blue Water + Littoral Water submarines NOW - because today is already significantly late compared to Australia‘s peer competitors.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinions and perspectives. I wish Australia peace - because only Peace insures Spiritual and material prosperity for every human being of our world, and every human being is our neighbor. Even when our neighbor elects to be an enemy, he/she remains a human being and, thus, of immense significance.
I wish you calm seas, a steady wind, and bright stars in the night.
Salome. Mögest du weiterhin im Frieden und SEIN der Schöpfung leben.
"Australia has been and continues to be a more reliable, more trustworthy, more rational, more perceptive, more formidable, and more helpful strategic partner to our Nation than ANY of the European members of NATO."
Britain has done more fighting and more investing than Australia.
We have the same type of weak leaders (Military & political) in Australia like those who led the Vichy government in France during WW11. That's why we have been dudded in the sailboat speed submarines buy. History teaches weak leaders & weak countries get taken over. Be very clear this buy is sending a clear signal message to those dictators & oppressive countries that would harm Australia. The Australian Defense network is having a long weekend break for the next 30 years & the don't really care as long as they get their perks ,super & present prestige.