@@ronniefarnsworth6465 well, it’s because it really is that next level of sensitive. A technology sharing of submarine technology hasn’t happened since the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958, where the US provided the UK with a fully functioning submersible nuclear reactor. This is easily one of the biggest defense pacts of the past several decades.
If we were gonna share with anyone it would always be Australia. We stand now as 3 pillars of the West guarding the planet each country strategically placed to take on anyone anywhere at anytime.
The RAN will join the British SSN(R) as the timeline is the same timeline in acquisition. The Astute’s nuclear reactor PWR 2 is ending production, to be replaced with the PWR3. So would we commission a sub that is being withdrawn at the same time?
It's possible, I'm pretty sure just after aukus was announced, the UK actually spent £170 million on the SSN(R) program. The thing is, I seem to remember at first they wanted a class already in service?
@@Cravendale98 they announced a mature design but if you’re about to commission a class of subs that the parent navy is starting to withdraw then it’s not mature but elderly. A day after the aukus announcement the British MOD announced two contracts for the start of design work on both the submarine and its new PWR3 reactor. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
Damn the exhibition looks so cool! I'm an engineering student hoping to get into defence in the future and was devestated when it was closed to the general public ;(
I got to go since I’m currently in the process of applying for the Navy. There is some very cool stuff on display and I got to talk to some very cool people. A fair bit of it was being shown off for the first time and I learnt about some future plans that haven’t been announced yet as far as I’m aware.
Now that Chairman Albo is in power we can probably kiss those AUKUS subs goodbye, hell we can probably kiss most of our potential acquisitions goodbye.
I doubt it. With no real domestic manufacturing industry outside of defence they will push for more local production and push for more Aussie equipment to be introduced in to both the US and UK military and that means jobs and ways to buy votes with defence contracts. That and they have shown no inclination to spend less on defence but are increasing defence spending
I think with all the headaches Australia has had with trying to customize their orders they are just going to leave it be. Besides, one of the best features of the virginia is the VLS cells it has whilst the astute has none, so if we go with the astute I don't think there will be any room for them.
@@dan7564 I agree. If Australia went for the for the right type off ships in the first place they wouldn't had to twerk every design they built bringing headaches. They could had just built The F100 class with CEFAR-2 radar and Aegis combat systems for the Hunter class frigates with 48 cell VLS and built an upgraded alright Burk class destroyer like South Korea did for that would had already had enough VLS for what Australia need for armament and already had the systems designed in its platform that RAN use. The Virginia class submarines are already fitted out with the latest technology. Years ahead from anything else.
@@Nathan-ry3yu I suspect we will go with the astute. We don't really need the vls cells. We just need torpedeos, to take out other ships. the vls is more for land bombardment I imagine. Which we're not really in the business of. Also the astute has less crew members which will help. And I think they are quieter with it's European diamond shaped hull that helps bounce away signals that the Americans only recently found out about. It's also a lot cheaper and quicker to build.
DO NOT think the YANKS are handing over anything EXCEPT an agreement for UK to hand over Nuclear Technology to Australia. The Boats are to be built, some, at BAe Australia Shipbuilding = HINT about Design/which Sub. That was ALL in the release IF people actual listen to what was said. The USN may "train" RAN in using Nuclear Attack Subs.
@@trevorhart545 I wouldn't be so sure, apprently the Astute has some problems operating in tropical waters as it was designed to hunt Russians in the artic.
Very interesting vid, tough get some answers that defence n government should have some answer too. I bet USV bluebottle will be major success especially for Asian countries that are trying protect their EEZ from illegal fishing.
Smart, autonomous drones are the future for defence technology. These autonomous systems can be used in a variety of civilian and military roles. At a much reduced costs, than manned vehicles.
@@Nathan-ry3yu HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is Australia, mate. They'll still be arguing over where the submarine factory is going to be in 2035. The plans will change after every election.
Virginia class submarine vs Astute. Australia must get the best submarine, the most lethal. With what 2022 has shown the world. All nations must be able to protect their interests. Virginia, with nukes. Australia needs to grow up. We need both. With any luck we’ll never need them, but if we do.
What do you mean, "Virginia, with nukes"? The Virginias DO NOT carry nuclear weapons. They are powered by a nuclear reactor. They only carry conventional weapons...torpedoes and cruise missiles. The Ohio-class is the current US Navy ballistic missile sub and they are being replaced by the Columbia-class, the first of which is being built right now. The Ohios and upcoming Columbias are the US subs that carry nuclear SLBMs and the Vanguard and upcoming Dreadnought-class are the UK subs that carry nuclear SLBMs. There are no talks at all of Australia getting subs that can launch nuclear SLBMs.
@@johnnytyler5685 Virginia, with nukes. = Virginia and nukes. I guess it could imply that somehow the two are equivalent? While in practice this is true/accurate. I believe that my statement implies… Virginia, (the class of US made submarine)The Virginia class, also known as the SSN-774 class, is a class of nuclear-powered cruise missile fast-attack submarines With a(accompanying) nuclear payload. Why should there be an accompanying nuclear payload on Australian Virginia class submarines? This is straightforward, and uncomplicated. China is the force driving the Australian defence force’s acquisition of significant strategic improvement, development, and expansion. China has/is undergoing the most significant military buildup in modern history. China is a nuclear power. Strategically speaking there is little question that China has targeted Australia with some of its nuclear weapons. Australia needs to ‘soften’ China’s asymmetrical advantage. The capacity to return catastrophic damage from a nuclear platform; Australian Virginia class submarines is exactly the deterrence these weapons are intended for. I am confident Australia would never use these weapons.
I am dissimilarly confident that China would never use these weapons. If Australia was known to have this capacity, China would need to consider the implications, this is what a deterrence accomplishes.
So why didn't we just purchase the nuclear version of the same French Sub instead of wasting critical time and money trying to covert and re engineer that same submarine to diesel electric? Madness
Because the barracuda sub would have to be refuelled every 7-10 years(LEU fuel reactor). The uk and u.s subs do not need to be refuelled for 30+ years(HEU fuel reactor)
@@lancebond2338 OK thanks. That makes sense now that we are actually looking at Nuclear Powered.
2 роки тому
@@lancebond2338 Subs have to be reffited every 7-10 years anyways. Using HEU fuel is not an advantage. The boats have to be stopped anyways for updates.
Let's Hope the Australian Navy has Not been Dazzled by the Bright Lights of the British and USA Navy's. Let's Hope the Australian Navy is Open Minded Enough to Allow a Competitive Bid from Australians to Supply Non Nuclear Highly Capable Subs.
@@CardSharkOfficial CARDSHARK, I Should Point Out to You what You Already Know. That is that Your Type of Comment is Commonplace on UA-cam and is Factually a Comment that belongs with a Group of Comments Called " The Most Dumbest of Comments". FURTHER, Cardshark, Even if You Look at Your Comment from the Point of View of Software or ai. Your Comment Still Only Represents Junk Software or Junk ai. FURTHER AGAIN, At the Moment in Australia there is an Election on and Cardshark You would Not Believe the Amount of Bullshit that is Out there. Yes Cardshark I have Attempted, Yet Failed to Convince CEO Wojcicki to Stay out of Australian Politics. But of Course there is a Bigger Problem the Communists have Infiltrated UA-cam and CEO Wojcicki Refuses to Deal with that Difficult Problem.
Maybe we can do a deal for the French to build us the nuclear Suffren and not have to pay them nearly six billion for very little.
2 роки тому
The brazilians got assistance to build a SSN on their Scorpène contract, but they already had a nuclear industry. I'm pretty sure the Australians would had concluded such a deal in 2016 if it wasn't for the absence of a nuclear industry
@ it is a case that the Australian people were more wary towards nuclear anything still having the stigma from Fukushima. Time has elapsed and memory fades along with the fear. The French reactor technology may not have suited us because the French reactor needs expensive and time consuming refuelling every ten years. The US and UK reactors don’t get refuelled until 30 years or slightly longer requiring lower operating cost and not having significant down time in dry dock for such a big procedure. We do t have much of a nuclear industry that is true. There has been strong resistance to any nuclear sector here and only one reactor that’s now only used for making medical grade isotopes. Our part of the world has quite an arms build up and our politicians have been asleep at the helm.
Yeah, lol so they come to the french and we offer to build them nuclear submarrines, because that's what france uses, then they tell us that they need long endurance non nuclear powered submarines because otherwise New zealand and other allied countries won't let them in their waters, so Follows a long development cycle to build the best possible EV sub that doesn't need air to run diesel, and that's made to out perform the current models used by sweeden and south korea, (no small feat) on top of that those submarines have to have all the same capablilities as their nuclear cousins, the same number of armament and by crew by only 50 sailor, also if their sieze could be considerably smaller (for cheaper easier soveriegn maintenance it would be good), while doing all that if france could train personel to soreignly do all the mainttenance in australia, by australians, and transfer the revelant technologies that would be great. and so the Suffren class was born, a revolutionary desing not without flaws that still needed some work but that showed it would achieve all it's operational goals with every small delay compared to the seize of the program and very little overhead. All was good, then out of no where AUKUS was signed, australia backedout ofthe deal leaving france and it's australian employees and docks and equipments it build useless and with no future, the joke being that the reason for this shift was because nuclear submarrines is now what Australia requires, Cough cough, you had those subs on paper to start with and you asked for them to be modified and a whole new diesel electric class to be constructed, and now your buying American made vVrginia class that your not allowed to do any maintenance on yourself, no technology transfers, the issue about your allies like New Zealand stays true, you have o buy american made munitions only and best of all you will have crews that are 3 times the seize of the fleet your originally intended...But why stop there, in the process your dumping your perfectly working tiger helicopters that could have gotten the mk3 upgrade putting them way ahead of the apaches your going to buy, and not be able to do maintenance on and no technology transfer ect ect, and why not After the NH-60 finaly gets out of it's theething problems that airbus continualy adressed and fixed at o extra cost like a good provider your going to switch for less efficient older black hawks... Congratulation Australia, now just buy some F-35's that will work when god knows when, truesly the only things the australian forces got going for them is their trusty Steyr Aug localy produced and those really good Bushmaster... i'm guessing you won't be replacing those oldabrams with leopards 3's or 4 or Leclercs 140 terminators XLR anytime soon either., i'd like to remind you that france is a sovereign nation of the pacific with French polynesia and New caledonia as well and Wallis and Futuna, and that the French navy is a Strong historic force in the indo-china region, and still is, i'm not sure that stabbing the froggies in the back was the best move ever made by Cambera.
But where will they he built and repaired as required? In Japan? They need to be built in Australia with maximum local industrial input. That's the point.
@@brothermaynard3200 Will it create as much employment as the people imagine if it is manufactured in their own country? The question. I know it as a study cost to be able to design a fighter in your own country like Japan, but ...
@@ノブゾウ That's not the question. You have missed the point entirely. What if one of these subs is damaged? Where will it be repaired? In 1942 Australia was left defenceless because we did not have the capability we now have.That should never be repeated.
@@brothermaynard3200 The French plan is gone, but it's not a reason to spend more than three times as much as a Japanese submarine. It's like buying a fighter for $ 300 million. You can buy 36 Japanese submarines for the price of buying 12 in the French plan
@@ノブゾウ I repeat. Defence is not just about military capability, it's also about industrial capability. Why can't you see that? What's more, Australia needs nuclear powered subs. Not diesel electric. We also need nuclear energy but we won't go into that.
Australia is building Diesel powered subs, already articles and documented. However, the subs are getting something more advanced then nuclear, this is all for show, and these subs will be able to be used in space, just like the germans in the 1930s.
That was CANCELLED 2 years ago. You MUST be French since they are the only ones who seem NOT to understand the word CANCEL, we are not interested in been SHAFTED by Naval Group of France OR Emmanuelle Macron Tantrums.
@@trevorhart545 Canadian Civilian. I am just an observer in a crazy world of propaganda. Thanks Obama 2013/mockingbird, + ministry of truth Dec 2016. How's operation Odin going? ;)
@@advanceaustralia3321 Because (a) UK dockyards are full building the RN’s new SSBN’s (b) We have a history of never buying MOTS, we always have to “Australianise “ a perfectly good bit of kit.
The AUKUS affaire is a pure joke if Australia had a need of nuke submarines it would had been supplie by Naval Group as well and sooner as far as the former order was about fuel motorised studied out of actual nuke motorised vessels. It finally is a non sens, Australia will pay more and finally get the new fleet ten years later. Will China wait so long?
Nobody wants to "comment" because (1) no comments are needed, (2) everyone knows what the future SSN policy of Australia will be, and (3) no need to say something that may just bring further embarrassment to the French.
Why would the French be embarrassed? It's not their screw-up. I believe there were no comments because in actuality there is nothing to comment on. No program, no timetable, no agreement on price or technology transfers, no free building capacity.
2 роки тому
@@adrien5834 Indeed. It's not the french who aren't capable to build nuclear submarines. The Shortfin Barracuda is a conventional variant of a nuclear boat. And the french are more than capable to deliver assistance to build nuclear boats. Brazil got a nuclear sub in their Scorpène package. The australian nuclear industry is next to non-existent. Would it had been at the same level as Brazil, the option to build a nuclear submarine would surely had been in the Attack-class contract, even maybe for the Collins. Australia wants to bite more than it could chew, so it will be the US that are going to pre-chew the nuclear part, like they did for Britain (by providing a nuclear reactor for HMS Dreadnought) and France (by providing reactor grade uranium and some assistance to lift the french out of the natural nuclear reactor dead end)
Astute class of UK looks more promising than Virginia class of USA.... UK can share it's technology or transfer some technical expertise and production and willing to help to provide a nuclear propulsion technicap support/designing IMHO. While US in my opinion they only willing to sell you their parts or design but doesn't share some secrets especially it's nuclear propulsion.... Wish Australia and UK sped up the realization of CANZUK Union with Canada and New Zealand to be 3rd pillar of democracy
The only reason the UK has nuclear pulsion is due to the USA sharing the technology with the UK. All of the technology belongs to the USA. Australia went to the UK for help involving SSN technology and the UK had to get permission from the USA. The last I knew, General Dynamics Electric Boat is the project manager of the UK's SSN production, because BAE screwed it up. The new British SSBN will have reactors that are made in the USA. There is absolutely no one with better technology than the USA within nuclear pulsion and sub technology. In fact, the USA fixed the Australian's current subs, after the Swedish company screwed those up. Years ago, Canada asked the UK for help building a SSN... and the USA rejected the idea. I would have thought hell would freeze before the USA gave this technology to anyone other than the UK. BTW, New Zealand will not even allow nuclear powered ships to go into its waters.
@@willw8011 Correct, the UK continue to reply on the US for the transfer of tech under the US-UK MDA, originally signed in 1958 and regularly updated and re signed, not just for nuclear propulsion but other "stuff" as well. The UK could not transfer any tech without the express permission of the US. The Astute program ran into some big problems and the US agreed to send a pretty decent number of people, plus people working back in the US from EB, what actually happened is the guy they sent ended up working for BAE and he ended up running the program and got it back on track. The PWR3 will be made in the UK by RR using UK technology for the core. But yes the PWR3 is basically the US S9G. The US helped the RAN with the Collins Class in a couple of critical areas, the screw was the biggest one, among a few other things, to say they "fixed" them is a little over the top, but they certainly helped a lot 👍 Cheers
CANZUK is a waste of time. Both Canada and New Zealand need to dramatically change their respective governments and increase defence spending accordingly. Its not up to the AUKUS countries to carry an unfair share of the burden.
Nah, US and UK just agreed on transfer with it's trade secrets to one another but not obligated to be send permission of their own design that is not connected to the US nuclear propulsion afaik... US government needs UK and UK needs US... Remember the US betrayed the UK when they jointly develop atom bomb. They didn't equally share the research to UK, so UK develop its own pseudo atom and hydrogen bomb in a very tight budget without a 100% support from it's politicians. It shocks US government. They realize if you want partnership and allies, you need to share some of your benefits and secrets😹😹😹😹 I knew some Americans are diehard proud Americans but we know your are mostly related to Europe's British, German/Nordic, Irish, Russian/other Slavs, French and Spanish ancestry. The only difference is the Blacks are African descent... There are no pure American people in US and the only true Americans are the red Indians who's being absorbed.... So I see that's why many are just blinded by the real past agenda of US to dominate and some betrayal they did from the past... Yeah US citizen are mostly European bloods and most of them hate British fat ass ego's... Who says CANZUK is waste of time.... Pro US and EU fans hate the idea of another group can oppose the other 2 police wannabe of the world with a hero syndrome... If US didn't fuck Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq and many more. China and Russia wouldn't been to cocky to start plotting... CANZUK Union is more suitable for starting a new group and it can reinvigorate the trade with it's Commonwealth cousin by investment and relocate the factories and trade away from China. US government should throw away the burden of heroic syndrome and help it's allies not dragging them to oblivion like what they're doing in Ukraine. Because Democrats of US wants a new world war 3 for the sake of new world order
Yes the UK is beholden to the US and can not transfer any nuclear submarine tech especially propulsion, ITARS has your answer, the US have absolute power over it.
Great report Xavier !!
0:31 Navantia Australia Smart 8000 destroyer looks interesting, I hope you will make a brief review of it.
It has some pretty cool features that I got to talk about with the guys and girls from Navantia Australia.
@@devonlord99 How many VLS cells does it have? It looks lightly armed for a destroyer
@@Nathan-ry3yu 36 cells
Interesting ..... It does not surprise me with the tight lip approach this AUKUS sub deal has and most understandable .
Strategic Russian and Chinese nukes will take them out!
@@ronniefarnsworth6465 well, it’s because it really is that next level of sensitive. A technology sharing of submarine technology hasn’t happened since the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958, where the US provided the UK with a fully functioning submersible nuclear reactor. This is easily one of the biggest defense pacts of the past several decades.
If we were gonna share with anyone it would always be Australia. We stand now as 3 pillars of the West guarding the planet each country strategically placed to take on anyone anywhere at anytime.
The RAN will join the British SSN(R) as the timeline is the same timeline in acquisition. The Astute’s nuclear reactor PWR 2 is ending production, to be replaced with the PWR3. So would we commission a sub that is being withdrawn at the same time?
It's possible, I'm pretty sure just after aukus was announced, the UK actually spent £170 million on the SSN(R) program.
The thing is, I seem to remember at first they wanted a class already in service?
@@Cravendale98 that was in the past.
@@CK-ur2ev Thanks captain obvious
@@Cravendale98 duh you asked a obvious question bro
@@Cravendale98 they announced a mature design but if you’re about to commission a class of subs that the parent navy is starting to withdraw then it’s not mature but elderly. A day after the aukus announcement the British MOD announced two contracts for the start of design work on both the submarine and its new PWR3 reactor. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
Damn the exhibition looks so cool! I'm an engineering student hoping to get into defence in the future and was devestated when it was closed to the general public ;(
Oh also if you get the chance, please check out the Anduril booth for me! Would love to see it.
I got to go since I’m currently in the process of applying for the Navy. There is some very cool stuff on display and I got to talk to some very cool people. A fair bit of it was being shown off for the first time and I learnt about some future plans that haven’t been announced yet as far as I’m aware.
Now that Chairman Albo is in power we can probably kiss those AUKUS subs goodbye, hell we can probably kiss most of our potential acquisitions goodbye.
And the Greens will push for solar powered subs , lol
I doubt it. With no real domestic manufacturing industry outside of defence they will push for more local production and push for more Aussie equipment to be introduced in to both the US and UK military and that means jobs and ways to buy votes with defence contracts. That and they have shown no inclination to spend less on defence but are increasing defence spending
Well done Australia ❤️🙌✅
Combine the best advantages of Astute sub and Virginia sub.
I think with all the headaches Australia has had with trying to customize their orders they are just going to leave it be.
Besides, one of the best features of the virginia is the VLS cells it has whilst the astute has none, so if we go with the astute I don't think there will be any room for them.
@@dan7564 I agree. If Australia went for the for the right type off ships in the first place they wouldn't had to twerk every design they built bringing headaches. They could had just built The F100 class with CEFAR-2 radar and Aegis combat systems for the Hunter class frigates with 48 cell VLS and built an upgraded alright Burk class destroyer like South Korea did for that would had already had enough VLS for what Australia need for armament and already had the systems designed in its platform that RAN use. The Virginia class submarines are already fitted out with the latest technology. Years ahead from anything else.
@@Nathan-ry3yu I suspect we will go with the astute. We don't really need the vls cells. We just need torpedeos, to take out other ships. the vls is more for land bombardment I imagine. Which we're not really in the business of. Also the astute has less crew members which will help. And I think they are quieter with it's European diamond shaped hull that helps bounce away signals that the Americans only recently found out about. It's also a lot cheaper and quicker to build.
DO NOT think the YANKS are handing over anything EXCEPT an agreement for UK to hand over Nuclear Technology to Australia. The Boats are to be built, some, at BAe Australia Shipbuilding = HINT about Design/which Sub. That was ALL in the release IF people actual listen to what was said. The USN may "train" RAN in using Nuclear Attack Subs.
@@trevorhart545 I wouldn't be so sure, apprently the Astute has some problems operating in tropical waters as it was designed to hunt Russians in the artic.
Very interesting vid, tough get some answers that defence n government should have some answer too. I bet USV bluebottle will be major success especially for Asian countries that are trying protect their EEZ from illegal fishing.
There is better solution for Illegal fishing detection like the unseenlabs satellites . For enforcement you will always need crewed ships.
Smart, autonomous drones are the future for defence technology. These autonomous systems can be used in a variety of civilian and military roles. At a much reduced costs, than manned vehicles.
you need nuclear submarines to run autonomous systems in the south china sea.
USV Bluebottle off Broome, might partially explain the Chinese spy ship currently conducting activities in that area.
Easiest solution for Australia in AUKUS, get 4 Virginia's and 4 Astute class submarines.
HINT there will be NO VIRGINIA, or any US class, submarines, so try a second guess.
My grandchildren will enjoy seeing the launch of the first AUKUS submarine. (I'm 18 years old)
Wow you must be planing to be a grandparent early because the submarines will be here in 2035.
@@Nathan-ry3yu HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is Australia, mate. They'll still be arguing over where the submarine factory is going to be in 2035. The plans will change after every election.
Hee hee
Virginia class submarine vs Astute. Australia must get the best submarine, the most lethal. With what 2022 has shown the world. All nations must be able to protect their interests. Virginia, with nukes. Australia needs to grow up. We need both. With any luck we’ll never need them, but if we do.
It will be an upgraded version Virginia class. I think
What do you mean, "Virginia, with nukes"? The Virginias DO NOT carry nuclear weapons. They are powered by a nuclear reactor. They only carry conventional weapons...torpedoes and cruise missiles. The Ohio-class is the current US Navy ballistic missile sub and they are being replaced by the Columbia-class, the first of which is being built right now. The Ohios and upcoming Columbias are the US subs that carry nuclear SLBMs and the Vanguard and upcoming Dreadnought-class are the UK subs that carry nuclear SLBMs. There are no talks at all of Australia getting subs that can launch nuclear SLBMs.
@@johnnytyler5685 Virginia, with nukes.
= Virginia
and nukes. I guess it could imply that somehow the two are equivalent?
While in practice this is true/accurate.
I believe that my statement implies…
Virginia, (the class of US made submarine)The Virginia class, also known as the SSN-774 class, is a class of nuclear-powered cruise missile fast-attack submarines
With a(accompanying) nuclear payload.
Why should there be an accompanying nuclear payload on Australian Virginia class submarines?
This is straightforward, and uncomplicated. China is the force driving the Australian defence force’s acquisition of significant strategic improvement, development, and expansion. China has/is undergoing the most significant military buildup in modern history. China is a nuclear power. Strategically speaking there is little question that China has targeted Australia with some of its nuclear weapons.
Australia needs to ‘soften’ China’s asymmetrical advantage.
The capacity to return catastrophic damage from a nuclear platform; Australian Virginia class submarines is exactly the deterrence these weapons are intended for.
I am confident Australia would never use these weapons.
I am dissimilarly confident that China would never use these weapons.
If Australia was known to have this capacity, China would need to consider the implications, this is what a deterrence accomplishes.
the military drone industry needs a steve jobs or elon musk character
So why didn't we just purchase the nuclear version of the same French Sub instead of wasting critical time and money trying to covert and re engineer that same submarine to diesel electric? Madness
Because the barracuda sub would have to be refuelled every 7-10 years(LEU fuel reactor). The uk and u.s subs do not need to be refuelled for 30+ years(HEU fuel reactor)
@@lancebond2338 OK thanks. That makes sense now that we are actually looking at Nuclear Powered.
@@lancebond2338 Subs have to be reffited every 7-10 years anyways. Using HEU fuel is not an advantage. The boats have to be stopped anyways for updates.
Let's Hope the Australian Navy has Not been Dazzled by the Bright Lights of the British and USA Navy's.
Let's Hope the Australian Navy is Open Minded Enough to Allow a Competitive Bid from Australians to Supply Non Nuclear Highly Capable Subs.
Is it an Australian Custom to Add Capitals to Pretty Much Each And Every Word ?
@@CardSharkOfficialCARDSHARK,
You have to Pay Me Royalties if You Copy My Methods.
@@CardSharkOfficial CARDSHARK,
I Should Point Out to You what You Already Know.
That is that Your Type of Comment is Commonplace on UA-cam and is Factually a Comment that belongs with a Group of Comments Called " The Most Dumbest of Comments".
FURTHER,
Cardshark, Even if You Look at Your Comment from the Point of View of Software or ai. Your Comment Still Only Represents Junk Software or Junk ai.
FURTHER AGAIN,
At the Moment in Australia there is an Election on and Cardshark You would Not Believe the Amount of Bullshit that is Out there.
Yes Cardshark I have Attempted, Yet Failed to Convince CEO Wojcicki to Stay out of Australian Politics.
But of Course there is a Bigger Problem the Communists have Infiltrated UA-cam and CEO Wojcicki Refuses to Deal with that Difficult Problem.
1. Royal Australian Navy
2. We are getting Astute SSNs.
@@advanceaustralia3321
1. Nuclear Subs will cause Australia to Decline Rapidly!.
2. Plus Nuclear Subs are Inferior to Other Technologies.
Maybe we can do a deal for the French to build us the nuclear Suffren and not have to pay them nearly six billion for very little.
The brazilians got assistance to build a SSN on their Scorpène contract, but they already had a nuclear industry. I'm pretty sure the Australians would had concluded such a deal in 2016 if it wasn't for the absence of a nuclear industry
@ it is a case that the Australian people were more wary towards nuclear anything still having the stigma from Fukushima. Time has elapsed and memory fades along with the fear. The French reactor technology may not have suited us because the French reactor needs expensive and time consuming refuelling every ten years. The US and UK reactors don’t get refuelled until 30 years or slightly longer requiring lower operating cost and not having significant down time in dry dock for such a big procedure. We do t have much of a nuclear industry that is true. There has been strong resistance to any nuclear sector here and only one reactor that’s now only used for making medical grade isotopes. Our part of the world has quite an arms build up and our politicians have been asleep at the helm.
Yeah, lol so they come to the french and we offer to build them nuclear submarrines, because that's what france uses, then they tell us that they need long endurance non nuclear powered submarines because otherwise New zealand and other allied countries won't let them in their waters, so Follows a long development cycle to build the best possible EV sub that doesn't need air to run diesel, and that's made to out perform the current models used by sweeden and south korea, (no small feat) on top of that those submarines have to have all the same capablilities as their nuclear cousins, the same number of armament and by crew by only 50 sailor, also if their sieze could be considerably smaller (for cheaper easier soveriegn maintenance it would be good), while doing all that if france could train personel to soreignly do all the mainttenance in australia, by australians, and transfer the revelant technologies that would be great. and so the Suffren class was born, a revolutionary desing not without flaws that still needed some work but that showed it would achieve all it's operational goals with every small delay compared to the seize of the program and very little overhead. All was good, then out of no where AUKUS was signed, australia backedout ofthe deal leaving france and it's australian employees and docks and equipments it build useless and with no future, the joke being that the reason for this shift was because nuclear submarrines is now what Australia requires, Cough cough, you had those subs on paper to start with and you asked for them to be modified and a whole new diesel electric class to be constructed, and now your buying American made vVrginia class that your not allowed to do any maintenance on yourself, no technology transfers, the issue about your allies like New Zealand stays true, you have o buy american made munitions only and best of all you will have crews that are 3 times the seize of the fleet your originally intended...But why stop there, in the process your dumping your perfectly working tiger helicopters that could have gotten the mk3 upgrade putting them way ahead of the apaches your going to buy, and not be able to do maintenance on and no technology transfer ect ect, and why not After the NH-60 finaly gets out of it's theething problems that airbus continualy adressed and fixed at o extra cost like a good provider your going to switch for less efficient older black hawks... Congratulation Australia, now just buy some F-35's that will work when god knows when, truesly the only things the australian forces got going for them is their trusty Steyr Aug localy produced and those really good Bushmaster... i'm guessing you won't be replacing those oldabrams with leopards 3's or 4 or Leclercs 140 terminators XLR anytime soon either., i'd like to remind you that france is a sovereign nation of the pacific with French polynesia and New caledonia as well and Wallis and Futuna, and that the French navy is a Strong historic force in the indo-china region, and still is, i'm not sure that stabbing the froggies in the back was the best move ever made by Cambera.
Just a hint. If you want more people to read your posts break it up into short paragraphs.
If you place an order with Japan, you can deliver it in 4 years.
How many years will it take to consider from now on?
But where will they he built and repaired as required? In Japan? They need to be built in Australia with maximum local industrial input. That's the point.
@@brothermaynard3200
Will it create as much employment as the people imagine if it is manufactured in their own country? The question.
I know it as a study cost to be able to design a fighter in your own country like Japan, but ...
@@ノブゾウ That's not the question. You have missed the point entirely. What if one of these subs is damaged? Where will it be repaired? In 1942 Australia was left defenceless because we did not have the capability we now have.That should never be repeated.
@@brothermaynard3200 The French plan is gone, but it's not a reason to spend more than three times as much as a Japanese submarine.
It's like buying a fighter for $ 300 million.
You can buy 36 Japanese submarines for the price of buying 12 in the French plan
@@ノブゾウ I repeat. Defence is not just about military capability, it's also about industrial capability. Why can't you see that? What's more, Australia needs nuclear powered subs. Not diesel electric. We also need nuclear energy but we won't go into that.
Australia is building Diesel powered subs, already articles and documented.
However, the subs are getting something more advanced then nuclear, this is all for show, and these subs will be able to be used in space, just like the germans in the 1930s.
That was CANCELLED 2 years ago. You MUST be French since they are the only ones who seem NOT to understand the word CANCEL, we are not interested in been SHAFTED by Naval Group of France OR Emmanuelle Macron Tantrums.
@@trevorhart545
Canadian Civilian.
I am just an observer in a crazy world of propaganda.
Thanks Obama 2013/mockingbird, + ministry of truth Dec 2016.
How's operation Odin going? ;)
The Aussies will be going with the Virginia class sub:)
I reckon they’ll choose the astute but put US tech in the sub
UK built Astute. No modifications.
Time is of the essence.
No, the RAN will buy a modified Astute class.
@@Smokeyr67
Why? It will only add cost, delay and uncertainty.
@@advanceaustralia3321 Because (a) UK dockyards are full building the RN’s new SSBN’s
(b) We have a history of never buying MOTS, we always have to “Australianise “ a perfectly good bit of kit.
The ADF are one of the most opaque militaries amongst democratic nations. Continual annoyance.
Why would we tell the world what we are doing, it's advantages to us on the battlefield to be tight lipped.
Submarine, Fighter Aircraft, Hypersonic Missile Systems... ASEAN high alert... ✌️😊✌️🇻🇳🇲🇲🇰🇭🇱🇦🇹🇭🇸🇬🇵🇭🇧🇳🇲🇾🇮🇩
The AUKUS affaire is a pure joke if Australia had a need of nuke submarines it would had been supplie by Naval Group as well and sooner as far as the former order was about fuel motorised studied out of actual nuke motorised vessels. It finally is a non sens, Australia will pay more and finally get the new fleet ten years later. Will China wait so long?
Typical back tracking bullshit. Someone is making more money from the aukus deal. Nothing else.
Nobody wants to "comment" because (1) no comments are needed, (2) everyone knows what the future SSN policy of Australia will be, and (3) no need to say something that may just bring further embarrassment to the French.
Why would the French be embarrassed? It's not their screw-up. I believe there were no comments because in actuality there is nothing to comment on. No program, no timetable, no agreement on price or technology transfers, no free building capacity.
@@adrien5834 Indeed. It's not the french who aren't capable to build nuclear submarines. The Shortfin Barracuda is a conventional variant of a nuclear boat. And the french are more than capable to deliver assistance to build nuclear boats. Brazil got a nuclear sub in their Scorpène package.
The australian nuclear industry is next to non-existent. Would it had been at the same level as Brazil, the option to build a nuclear submarine would surely had been in the Attack-class contract, even maybe for the Collins.
Australia wants to bite more than it could chew, so it will be the US that are going to pre-chew the nuclear part, like they did for Britain (by providing a nuclear reactor for HMS Dreadnought) and France (by providing reactor grade uranium and some assistance to lift the french out of the natural nuclear reactor dead end)
Astute class of UK looks more promising than Virginia class of USA.... UK can share it's technology or transfer some technical expertise and production and willing to help to provide a nuclear propulsion technicap support/designing IMHO. While US in my opinion they only willing to sell you their parts or design but doesn't share some secrets especially it's nuclear propulsion.... Wish Australia and UK sped up the realization of CANZUK Union with Canada and New Zealand to be 3rd pillar of democracy
The only reason the UK has nuclear pulsion is due to the USA sharing the technology with the UK. All of the technology belongs to the USA. Australia went to the UK for help involving SSN technology and the UK had to get permission from the USA. The last I knew, General Dynamics Electric Boat is the project manager of the UK's SSN production, because BAE screwed it up. The new British SSBN will have reactors that are made in the USA.
There is absolutely no one with better technology than the USA within nuclear pulsion and sub technology. In fact, the USA fixed the Australian's current subs, after the Swedish company screwed those up. Years ago, Canada asked the UK for help building a SSN... and the USA rejected the idea. I would have thought hell would freeze before the USA gave this technology to anyone other than the UK.
BTW, New Zealand will not even allow nuclear powered ships to go into its waters.
@@willw8011 Correct, the UK continue to reply on the US for the transfer of tech under the US-UK MDA, originally signed in 1958 and regularly updated and re signed, not just for nuclear propulsion but other "stuff" as well.
The UK could not transfer any tech without the express permission of the US.
The Astute program ran into some big problems and the US agreed to send a pretty decent number of people, plus people working back in the US from EB, what actually happened is the guy they sent ended up working for BAE and he ended up running the program and got it back on track.
The PWR3 will be made in the UK by RR using UK technology for the core. But yes the PWR3 is basically the US S9G.
The US helped the RAN with the Collins Class in a couple of critical areas, the screw was the biggest one, among a few other things, to say they "fixed" them is a little over the top, but they certainly helped a lot 👍
Cheers
CANZUK is a waste of time. Both Canada and New Zealand need to dramatically change their respective governments and increase defence spending accordingly. Its not up to the AUKUS countries to carry an unfair share of the burden.
Nah, US and UK just agreed on transfer with it's trade secrets to one another but not obligated to be send permission of their own design that is not connected to the US nuclear propulsion afaik... US government needs UK and UK needs US... Remember the US betrayed the UK when they jointly develop atom bomb. They didn't equally share the research to UK, so UK develop its own pseudo atom and hydrogen bomb in a very tight budget without a 100% support from it's politicians. It shocks US government. They realize if you want partnership and allies, you need to share some of your benefits and secrets😹😹😹😹
I knew some Americans are diehard proud Americans but we know your are mostly related to Europe's British, German/Nordic, Irish, Russian/other Slavs, French and Spanish ancestry. The only difference is the Blacks are African descent... There are no pure American people in US and the only true Americans are the red Indians who's being absorbed.... So I see that's why many are just blinded by the real past agenda of US to dominate and some betrayal they did from the past... Yeah US citizen are mostly European bloods and most of them hate British fat ass ego's...
Who says CANZUK is waste of time.... Pro US and EU fans hate the idea of another group can oppose the other 2 police wannabe of the world with a hero syndrome... If US didn't fuck Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq and many more. China and Russia wouldn't been to cocky to start plotting... CANZUK Union is more suitable for starting a new group and it can reinvigorate the trade with it's Commonwealth cousin by investment and relocate the factories and trade away from China. US government should throw away the burden of heroic syndrome and help it's allies not dragging them to oblivion like what they're doing in Ukraine. Because Democrats of US wants a new world war 3 for the sake of new world order
Yes the UK is beholden to the US and can not transfer any nuclear submarine tech especially propulsion, ITARS has your answer, the US have absolute power over it.
China has unnamed automated subs, some so small you can never detect. Not that good by comparison
China's noisy subs are not built to move far away from their coast line.
China has only 6 nuclear powerd submarines and they very noisy. The rest off China submarines are conventional powerd submarines and have poor range