10:02 The UK makes its own nuclear ballistic missile submarines too, though it buys American missiles to mount its warheads on. It had a nuclear triad but decommissioned the other two “legs.”
Yes, US and UK share some nuclear sub designs, and of course share the most sophisticated ICBM, SLBM missile in the world. The Trident is by far the best in the world, Russia or China can't build one as effective as this one, not even on land!
The UK does not have a large landmass and is fairly weell poipulated. That limits the number of airbases and missile silo bases in the UK, giving the then USSR a small set of targets. While not cheap, nuclear subs posses less of a security risk than land bases. You don't have to worry about a couple of drunks thinking it is a good idea to try to get into a sub 100 meters plus in the middle of the ocean. Same can't be said of bases. LOL
UK’s subs are some of the most formidable boats on the water. The only other subs that come close are likely swedens subs….I want to see Sweden step out for Aukus. Their tech would likely be the key to severe dominance from The Soviet and Chinese fleets.
Submarines were never, ever irrelevant. The US operates 10 nuclear carriers, but it has around 75 submarines of various types, including 2 new Virginia boats every year. People think they aren't important because they don't get a lot of screen time, but then again that is the point.
I guess that statement rings true to people who only get their military knowledge from movies. Submarines aren't as flashy as other ships and don't work for the camera well. People don't realize just how damn big they are either. I've seen one sectipn at EB being built - they are MASSIVE when ya see it outside the water. Submarines are the corner stone for all nuclear powers safety. One submarine can basically destroy any nation thrice over. They are just out of the limelight yet do a lot when it comes to everything from deterrence, intelligence, and special operations. They don't call it the Silent Service without reason!
If you are going to have a special on submarine, then you probably should address the fact that although China may have more ships on the water pound for pound, we have about four times as much tonnage so you can count every canoe. They have floating, but it doesn’t make them a battleship.
in the next 20 years China is bound to become Superpower if all trends continue. They are using long term planning knowing they can build in peace as no one will ever attack.
At about 4 minutes in to this video, you state submarines had sunk "BATTLESHIPS"? Being a bit of a naval buff apart from WW 2, I have never red of a WW 1 submarine sinking a Battleship by torpedoes or their deck gun which was their primary weapon. As to WW 2, three Battleships where sunk by submarines: HMS Royal Oak by U-47, HMS Barham by U-331 and IJN Kongō by USS Sealion. Now if I am error please correct me.....but I find today so many people can not tell the difference between Warships and Battleship, a very distinctive 'TYPE' of Warship!
In your introduction when you spoke about the 'Turtle" you should have also mentioned the 'Hunley' which was a manually operated submarine created by the Confederates during the Civil War, and if I remember correctly, it sunk a Union ship during the blockade. A very interesting story in history if you've never heard of it, and well worth a mention here, for early historic context. There was even a movie made about it, that tells the basic story.
The Taiwan Strait and South China Sea isn't that deep - @300ft in a lot of spots. That limits the ability for a submarine to hide from helicopters and ASW airplanes. Even less water to evade a torpedo homing on you. Doing a submarine combat mission there could be a death mission for the crew.
The explains why the U.S. have delegates that role to their proxy in the area, Australia. America is quite willing to fight Russia and China to the last Ukrainian and Australian.
The Subs aren't for attacking through the Strait. They are intended to bottle up the PLAN surface fleet inside the first island chain. Combined with a blockade at Malaccas, the plan is to create a kill box in the SCS.
Submarines have been the most important thing at sea other than aircraft carriers since their invention. You may have thought they weren't important, but they have been the entire time
There are two kind of vessels at sea. U-boats and targets. Aircraft carriers are as relevant as battleships. They will be sunk within days if total war breaks out.
The multi decade plan for the Navy is called Ghost Fleet. Essentially, half the navy would be autonomous - small, medium and large ships and the same for subs. Leave the carriers, mini carriers and other ships manned. I really like this plan and believe it could be extremely effective - imagine a carrier group commanding forty, mission specific ships/subs. Some are doing recon, some laying mines, some searching for mines, others providing Missile defense, some conducting anti submarine warfare, some moving supplies, etc. It's brilliant and the costs of those autonomous ships are far lower due to the fact that there are no people and they're mission specific (hopefully either nuclear or full electric as well but nothing said on that). There's also been an idea thrown around of a "Democratic 1,000 Fleet Navy" - India actually made hints at this. Essentially, all the major democracies, think NATO, Japan, Aussies, India, etc, would chip in a couple hundred ships and coordinate in order to fully secure the global oceans. I love that idea personally. It would Essentially ensure secure trade routes between free nations using oceans which America is becoming less and less willing to do (understandably). This could be a wonderful new model to replace the solo-American ocean security model that's been occurring since Bretton-Woods. Anything that brings all the democracies in better cooperation and coordination with military functions is a win in my book - hopefully it does not take a Chinese invasion to create it (it might - it took WW2 for Bretton Woods). Also, my English heritage obliges me to correct one thing in this video (it's a wonderful video as always) - The UK is the world's most important island, followed closely by Japan and the Aussies
One thing to understand about subs is that while they are really good for a launching base for nuclear missiles because of it being invisible from satellites, but as you mentioned they aren't fast or maneuverable compared to conventional subs. Also, they are much louder which makes it easier to be noticed by sonars which kinds of sucks as a sub and if you don't plan to put nuclear missiles, It really doesn't have much merit. So there isn't much rationality purely from a military standpoint for Australia since they are not planing to arm the nuclear subs with nuclear missiles. I think the fact that Australia geting the capability for US and UK subs to get maintenance is rather much more important since those countries would be able to launch nuclear missiles from the middle of the Pacific Ocean would allow them to project much power in the Indo-Pacific region. Countries don't just make military decisions just because of military reasons. Sometimes such decisions are politically motivated and we should not ignore such points.
There is one rational point for Australia to have nuclear powered subs; range! Nuclear powered subs can operate across much larger distances without needing resupply. Australia's nuclear powered subs will easily be able to go from their bases in Western Australia to the Straights of Malacca, and have plent of time to run any missions there. Diesel-electric subs just don't have that endurance. Australia can militarily independently cut off the main trade artery to China with nuclear powered subs.
The Nuclear deterrent has an acronym M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction.) This is an appropriate acronym because you would have to be totally stark raving bonkers to even contemplate their usage. As Jason discovered in War Games, the only winning move is not to play.
John your content is well researched and presented in a way for everyone to understand. Keep up the solid work man, stay true to yourself and you're set bud.
It's really not, or he's intentionally being misleading by omission. For example, his comparison of naval power by entirely focusing on number of ships. Imagine if I told you that my hostile neighbor has 100 weapons, and I only have 1. Obviously I'm in big trouble right? Well, like John, I'm forgetting to mention that he has 100 knives, and I have SAW light machine gun, a steel reenforced door, and metal bars on all my windows. That's pretty much exactly what he did comparing the number of Chinese naval ships, to the USN.
Macron is a weenie. Morrison was 100% right to axe the FR sub deal…Delivery was not only “behind schedule,’ FR kept raising the cost of the (old tech) subs…
No, he missed a big chunk on the history and origin of the 11-Dash lines following the 1945 Potsdam Conference in which Stalin, Truman, and Churchill decided to return the islands to China. Get the full facts.
Australia had a prime minister who wanted to bully China at the behest of the US. Australia banned Huawei from its plans for 5 G were among 14 complaints China had against Australia. Eventually China instituted a series of economic sanctions against Australia, high tarriffs or banning Australian export to China. The Australian people then voted prime minister Morrison out. AUKUS is really more about getting Australian tax payers to send money to US defense contractors more than anything else. The Subs from AUKUS won't arrive till the 2040's and will cost ~300 billion over the next few decades. A huge amount considering Australia's 1.5 trillion GDP. In the ceramony at the start of the AUKUS deal president Biden famously forgot the name of the prime minister of Australia, PM what's his hame.
In the late 80s, Canada considered purchasing nuclear submarines to defend its arctic sovereignty. US and Russian subs would make visits in its territory unannounced. After lengthy consideration, Canada decided to purchase 4 used Trafalgar class diesel submarines from UK instead. In 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi (the first of 4 subs) made its way from UK to Canada. It caught fire along the way, resulting in one dealth and eight injured.
Australia does not want nuclear weapons. This was mooted during the late 1960s, but the research and engineering to build Australia's own nuclear weapons were then rejected (it causes a nuclear arms race with it's large neighbors, in particular Indonesia). The nuclear powered boats bought or acquired by Australia is for sinking ships, other submarines and dare it say it, fire cruise missiles at land-based targets.
Well, you forgot about autonomus nuclear submarines that might be new era in submarines. One of them is russian "Poseidon" or status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System. This is submarine with nuclear bomb inside, that goes autonomus among the oceans and can blow up. It is designed especialy for targeting city near the ocean shore and poluting water with radiation. It scares much, because they dont need to acsend or change fuel or other staff. And also this thing is less able to be spoiled. Very dangerous thing. But luckely none of them yet had been launched
autonomous nuclear submarines. . .armed with 4 tubes. Can lurk on the bottom undetected for months, years. Small and hard to detect, they have been placed around the oceans near major world coast lines. I mean will be. Giant carriers are sitting ducks for airborne drones, jetskis and submersibles. They might be able to fight off hundreds simultaneously but not thousands. After Ukraine, asynchronous just took on a whole new meaning. A kid masters the video game of drone warfare and take out a tank.
I think it would be really cool to see a new version of submarines be made by the military. A different category then the usual design. One that is meant for way more intricate maneuverability and visibility. Still go with the modern advanced nuclear energy options. Just instead of only the large bulky no visibility submarines. How about some new subs that are highly maneuverable. Sure maybe they can't go to the deepest depths, but they will fill a different role where they can move around and do things and go places that no other sub can..
I think the extremely high water pressure fundamentally limits the maneuverability of submarines. Even aircraft need to deal with wind resistance. Now try turning sharply when then pressure is 100 atmosphere… or 1,000 atmospheres!
@@Ryan256 i totally understand & hear you out about "How much they must respect & engineer around pressure resistance" if they are designing Deep diving vessel's. *But i was trying to point out how it could be beneficial for the military to make Nimble, maneuverable, small agile vessels that dont have to go to extreme depths. Where the military could use them in places, environment's, conditions that other under water vessels couldn't go. (It could be utilized for stealth/reconnaissance missions, etc.) *If they're doing deep dives, that should be with a completely different vessel. But it would be cool to see them create new designs for different engineered niche uses because imo the "classic submarine seems pretty outdated except for very particular uses"
@@benmcreynolds8581 Oh, I see. Your idea is more feasible if you're talking about a very small vessel built around a single person operating at shallow depths. Still, water is more like molasses than air. Think about the maneuverability of a really expensive speed boat vs. a cheap single engine light sport aircraft. I don't know enough about radar/sonar to tell you if the stealth aspect would be relevant, beyond visual obscurity. I imagine the enemy would quickly adapt to detecting them (because fast and maneuverable vessels generate lots of noise), but they might be effective if developed in secret and suddenly deployed in large numbers. The other question is weapons payload. It's hard to fit lots of torpedoes in a tiny vessels. Laser beams or other exotic compact weapons maybe? Or how about ill-tempered seabass with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads?! Sorry... that's an Austin Powers reference 😂 The Japanese had human-operated suicide torpedos during WWII, but I think we're both not talking about that! 😂 My guess is what you're describing would work best as an unmanned AI powered torpedo. No human lives would be put at risk and thousands of them would be cheaper than an aircraft carrier. Even better would be an unmanned torpedo that could loiter at great depths, then suddenly ascend for a sneak attach when an enemy is detected. They could work as a swarm and share sensor information. As soon as one detected an enemy, all the others could swarm in for a concerted attack. 🦈💥
Hydrodynamic is dynamically different only hyper (super cavitating) torpedoes have turning issues at pressure by having a rough skin that drags a small layer of water friction is reduced water and water slips by easier than the smooth metal and water also sonar stealth is enhanced with a layer of air creating an air envelope the torpedo slips in but turning is problematic
5:50 Rickover jumped the chain of command and went straight to Nimitz because Nimitz was also a submariner. People are not aware of this because of his achievements as a fleet admiral.
Busnell failed to attached explosive under the British ship because those days the British ships are clad with bronze under the bows. 😂 he couldn’t drill the damn thing..
@@michaelsnodgrass1808 This is where we get the saying 'copper bottomed' implying that something is built to a higher standard. Interesting the copper sheets were put in place to slow down the accumulation of weed adhering itself to the hull which would become a trailing skirt of substantial mass slowing ships down, and causing massive lee way. The copper was also there to try to prevent ingress of a creature called the 'torpedo' worm (which would bore holes through the ship's timber) a century or more before torpedoes were invented.
are you an investor in anduril, or in any of the companies that invested in anduril? either way, i think you should state it when boosting a company because I understand that you are an investor? thanks. good content though (and you've got a very unique voice)
You pointed out that post-World War 2, the USA and the USSR were competing with each other technologically and in other ways. You then show a picture [11:31] of the British computer - the Colossus, being operated at Bletchley Park by ladies from the WRNS. In fact the Colossus was the world's first digital,semi-programmable computer which first saw service in 1943 several years before the earliest American rival.
are you not mixing up nuclear propulsion and being nuclear armed? serious question, as I thought they were different concepts. it seemed like you were talking about being powered by nuclear at the beginning, due to diesel having too many problems, but then you start talking about the missiles it carries. I was actually looking forward to finding out about how these nuclear engines(?) work. and whether we could have nuclear powered planes, ships, tanks, etc. if any one could explain if there's a difference, or just correct me if i mixing things up, i'd be grateful, thanks
Believe it or not, it is Theoretically possible to have nuclear powered aircraft. the US came up with some designs in the 60s The main issue, is size. making a small nuclear reactor is a bit beyond us, especially when the most effective shielding method for radiation requires thick materials. Subs, and large aircraft, are about as small as we can make reactors, at the moment, while also allowing the crew to remain safe. Also... reactors work basically the same way whether on land or at sea. Use fusion reaction to create heat. Use heat to make thing spin, typically turbine, typically using steam. Spinny thing makes either electricity, propulsion, or both. Downsides... well. in the case of an aircraft, they kinda would spread radioactive material around them if they ever suffered an accident and crashed, let alone if they were shot down.
The notion that modern nuclear submarines are "silent" is also a bit of common misconception, in fact, they're noisy little buggers and require some of their crew to use noise-protection gear. The noise level in the engine department can easily reach in excess of 100 decibels which significantly louder than your average subway train.
Inside can be noisy when not on noise-alert status. Outside, if you were blind and in the ocean, the Virginia, Ohio, and especially the Sea-Wolf classes could pass 10 feet behind you and you would NEVER KNOW. You are highly misinformed sir. American submariners haven't worn padded footing since long ago. We are allowed tennis shoes on watch as well as a hat of our favorite team if we choose. But it is not for noise at all. Strictly a morale thing. Motors hang on springs from a shelf which hangs on springs from a wall, which hangs on springs for the module, which is suspended within the pressure hull using hoodoo voodoo. It's not springs, but dampers that are specifically tuned for whatever equipment it will be in conjunction with. Modern nukes can run on low power with NO equipment running, with cooling water circulating strictly from natural drafting- hot rises, cold sinks..... I will never speak of an American sub engine room. The nuke plant is quiet, I assure you. When backup engines have to be started up, they can be noisy, but they are last resort equipment or run in port during routine testing. That's the only place you'd ever need hearing protection lol. And don't even try to say you're a submariner- no matter what nationality you might be, anyone who even makes a peep about decibel levels even in the kitchen would be court martialed and do time because other than a few officers and the captain and the man that vibration tests everything 24/7 with his handheld stethoscope/oscilloscope, nobody else knows decibel ratings because it's beyond need to know and is most definitely classified Top Secret.
A major turning point in submarine technology occurred around 1940 when the US Navy investigated a way to locate downed pilots at sea. What they found was a "deep sound channel" that carried sounds for thousands of miles with almost no signal loss. A serious study of the unexpected ocean acoustic environment followed. A related achievement was the use of digital signal processing (DSP) to eliminate circuit noise in the analog equipment that previously examined sound signals to locate the specific sources & movements of underwater items. A digital signal processor immediately transforms every detected signal in an sonar array into an array of digital numbers. This conversion is done with Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs). From then on, all signal processing is done by using mathematical, rather than electronic, transformations. The advantage we had over unsuspecting Soviets lasted until a Navy Warrant Officer, Johnny Walker, sold them the secret. Russians have since learned to make their huge submarines disappear.
It is so SICKENING to hear that boilerplate again, “Beijing considers Taiwan to be a renegade province.” Doesn’t anyone have the professional balance to mention what Taipei considers China to be? Similar to Ukraine there needs to be a policy of “Nothing about Taiwan without Taiwan.” They have been a participating member of the modern world economy and an open society much longer than Ukraine has. Time to give Taiwan the respect and fair hearing they have done so much to earn.
one of the first things they tell you in njrotc or any kind of naval class is that when it comes to ocean warfare there are only submarines and targets.
Germany amd japan had the best torpedoes in ww2 our torpedoes sucked and theirs a lot of stories of our torpedoes u-turning and sinking the ship that fured it
When you imply that the Chinese Navy is superior to the US Navy based on hull count, you lose all credibility. Navies aren’t measured in hulls they are measured by tonnage. By tonnage the US Navy is over three times as large as the Chinese Navy. It is larger than the Chinese Navy and Russian Navy combined. In fact the US Navy is larger than the next six navies combined and four of those are allies. Interesting fact by hulls North Korea’s Navy is over 20% larger than the Chinese Navy.
The Soviet Union was a minor economic force that poured far too much of its money into its weapons. It was never an equal of the United States in any way except for its weaponry, and even that has been called into question.
@@slimbride777 Unfortunately, the whole world has made China extremely rich, and 90% of the money has gone to their totalitarian government. They can afford to buy lots of weapons, and they are not as dumb as they used to be. We are fortunate that totalitarian regimes have almost always produced militaries that are handicapped by the fear of taking initiative or deviating from the plan provided by the autocrat. But even a handicapped Chinese military with hundreds of thousands men, is still one that can take out a lot of our fighters before their government decides they have had enough.
You Americans are so desperate to try to show and tell everyone that nobody is on your level, which we both know isn’t true, the USSR then had you all shitting yourselves, and china right now is doing the same thing
You kind of misrepresented what happen with the French sub deal. France was behind schedule and was quoting Australia 2/3 more per sub than what was originally quoted. It was plagued with issues with the timeline being extended at least once maybe twice.
The most important island in the world regarding tech* yes. If we lost it to China it would be devastating. But if we lost the UK to China, that would be more impactful to the economy right now.
As an Australian, I have to say for defence we shouldn't have just Nuclear subs. Automomous subs should be something we should also have. It's efficient, probably cheaper, could sink adversaries like specific vessels off of Taiwan and our mainland. (If we were to go to war). Which could also serve to protect our country from invasion. I mean if Mexican Cartels can make their own cheap subs, why can't we make better? Way cheaper options for our military?
It’s significantly more nuanced than this man. A lot of it has to do with geopolitics. The world is in the process of becoming multipolar after many years of a western hegemony. It’s a good move imo
@@Daydreamave Do you know anything about autonomus submarines? Are they loud machines? This ain't sarcasm, it's a literal question I have as I am not sure.
@@Daydreamave That's sick! Would autonomous minisubs do the same do you think in wartime scenarios as well or would they be more like reaper drones for stealth like the US has?
Wow. What Leonardo DeVinci said regarding sea and man was pretty acurate, despite being made long before the advent of the first underwater combat vessel!
I agree. The music on videos is a nonsense. Like those old cowboy's movies that i love are all contaminated with such an annoying music that sometimes i have to turn the sound off.
"And despite being the world's largest steel producer, China was unable to produce the high quality steel to case the ink-dispensing ball, resulting in the steel being imported from Germany or Japan." - 2017
That's about their inability to make a ballpoint pen until 2017. I think their military might be just another paper tiger, just like Russia's has turned out to be.
Hey John and team, can you change the highlight color of purple? It’s really hard to read the headlines when it’s black on dark purple. Thank you for all of these videos!!!
Too bad they didn't buy the French conventional submarines along with the nuclear submarines because we could have had the glorious acronym of "FAUKUS" meeting in San Diego 😂
Was searching for this comment… Since we are at submarines… Soviet Union produced 240 nuclear submarines, China produced how much? 10?😀 30 years later.. Aircraft carrier? Soviet copy:) Nuclear weapons? 2% of what Soviets had 60 years ago?😁 Tanks? Soviets 50k, China 5k. …
Wow never knew subs were so important.. What about aircraft carrier subs like the Imperial Japanese tried to create at the end of WW2.. Guess you can use multiple attack drones instead of Manned Aircraft these days 🤔
My question is to what extent these subs in Australia with the 330 Billion investment might be countered by Chinese drone technology. I just look at the efficiency of robotic-based tech in space, combat drones, etc vs manned fighters and think really if the Chinese want to counter the threat to this technology it probably won't be as hard as people think.
He said the “Dive LD” was a bit smaller than the Ohio class submarine. He then went on to say the Dive LD was just 20ft long….. ummm that is a WHOLE LOT smaller than an Ohio class submarine LOL. The Ohio class Submarine is in excess of 550 ft brother, Did I miss something there?
Had to stop watching / listening because of the bleeping music. Not good at all for the brain. Overly done talk versus music. Skip the music instead of spamming bleeping music!
16:03 Canceling the contract for the submarines wasn't the problem. The *way* it was done, keeping Europe completely I'm the dark and destroying multiple European geopolitical, economical and diplomatic plans and also showcasing US continued tendency towards treating the EU more and more as a adversary instead of an ally is what pissed us off. The announcement may have interfered with the election in France. It humiliated the EU that was simultaneously publishing their long term plans for the region (where Europe *does* have territory *and* interests). And it undermined NATO. Also, this was back when there was still quite a bit of issues between the EU and UK due to brexit. Something that didn't exactly help matters. Because essentially this interfered with internal European politics both within countries and between them ass well as with our interests abroad and our economy... So, yes, we where pissed, and not just France. Other Europeans too. US aid to Europe and especially Ukraine after the invasion has patched up a lot of our frustrations with the US, but before that we definitely where not happy with the country... The US was simply not seen as reliable.
@@michaelsnodgrass1808 While their ambitions can be annoying as heck at times, yes, they're actually more reliable then the US on average. That said, they have the same kind of messed up first past the post system that are messing up the political climate in most of the anglophone countries...
More proper Names for the Seas: For the Ocean water near Vietnam, We should call this the "Vietnam Sea". Not the misnamed: "South China Sea". As China already claimed the (North) China Sea. This way, everyone in the world will understand the Vietnam legitimate claim to their water. Thank you. HD
I almost agree with china on some issues. Like just this week they cut infront of one of our ships and planes. We dont want chinese battle ships crusing off our coast so why do we do it to them. Just imagine a russian or chinese desroyer only 100 miles off the west or east coast. We the people would raise heck about letting them that close. But we do it every other week to them.
@@Destroyer_V0 i understand but i for one dont think a 20 mile shore buffer is right. No nation should be allowed to have warships within 500 miles of another's coast line to me
@@evrydayamerican That literally doesn't work for any nation in and around the south china sea. If they all had areas of ocean they controlled 500 Nautical mile zones? Lets say, china and vietnam. Their areas of control over the ocean already butt up against one another. THEN, you take into account china making a bunch of islands in the south china sea, and measure, again, 500 nautical miles from each of those? NO ONE HAS ANY CONTROL OF THAT SEA BUT CHINA, because they can enforce their control of the zone, and no one else can. Is that fair? That China can, theoretically, sail their ships right up to the coast of another nation and invade them cause they own some islands within 20 nautical miles, let alone 500 NM of the coastline of them? Or how about europe? The danes with their control into and out of the baltic sea, and the mediterannian with a bunch of small islands in it controlled by larger nations, would again, mean certain nations can bully others into sayin noooo, this is MY SEA, LEAVE. Same goes for anyone trying to pass the UK. Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Warships have long range weapons, the further they are kept away the better. But it is literally impossible, without breaking international codes or asking for permission then (which may not be given if another nation feels strongly against what you're doing), for certain nations, lets say france, to move their fleet from their northern coast into the Mediterranean, if they needed to! Same goes for the US in fact, trying to move their fleet from the east to west coasts, if other nations, again, decided to extend the area of ocean they own such as mexico, and brazil.
Another great episode John. True in every regard and so on-point. As things get more involved in Ukraine and the russian civil war escalates we cannot take our attention away from this situation in the South China Sea. China has committed to this strategic plan a decade ago. Their production of new Naval ships SO FAR outstrips the US production capabilities - it's scary.
@@CentauriSphere Don't bet your future - on semantics. China IS creating their Navy and adding new ships MUCH faster than the US and does have MORE ships currently. Soon the Chinese Navy 'tonnage' will also be higher.
@@bc-guy852 yes china is adding more tonnage. But the quality of those ship as well as solider are just as important. War are not won alone on size of armies and weapons.
@@jayakumar9976 I do NOT disagree! I just wish everyone (on this continent) were much more aware of how invested China is - in the RAPID development of their fleets (naval and other) and military capabilities in all areas. They're building islands in the South China Sea and putting air and naval bases on them - claiming them as their sovereign land... Their claim to all the resources inside the '9-lines' region is madness - they are trying to force... They created life-size mock-ups of US aircraft carriers in the desert - to refine their bombing skills to the 'muscle memory' level - - all based on US aircraft carriers... Not good. No good can come of all this buildup. (Unless you're in the Defence Industry).
@@bc-guy852" life size mockup of us carriers " - That bad. I think china now know they can't beat USA head to head. So they will wait for like may be five or ten years. What dangerous about China is there are ready to play the long term game.
0:00: 🚢 Submarines are becoming increasingly important in the geopolitical landscape, particularly in the South China Sea. 4:21: 🚢 German U-boats transformed perceptions of submarines and became an essential asset for any modern Navy. 7:53: 🌍 The concept of deterrence in geopolitics is based on the idea that countries build big militaries and advanced weapons to prevent wars rather than win them. 11:21: 🌍 The world transitioned from a bipolar to a unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but now we are living in a world where China is rising as a major power. 15:13: 🇦🇺 Australia cancels submarine deal with France and signs a new agreement with the US and UK, angering France. 18:51: 💣 The collapse of the Soviet Union and China's reaction to it have influenced the current global power dynamics and the need for advanced submarines. 22:23: 🚢 The Sea Hunter is an autonomous ship that can track submarines without a crew, but there is a need for autonomous submarines. Recap by Tammy AI
The triad requires 3 different delivery methods. Including by air and by land based systems. The former the UK certainly used to operate, with their V bombers, but those have been retired for decades at this point.
"famously there isn't much oxygen under water" uh.. but there is, because water is mainly oxygen. In fact I'm pretty sure there are more oxygen atoms in water than in the air :)
10:02 The UK makes its own nuclear ballistic missile submarines too, though it buys American missiles to mount its warheads on. It had a nuclear triad but decommissioned the other two “legs.”
Yes, US and UK share some nuclear sub designs, and of course share the most sophisticated ICBM, SLBM missile in the world. The Trident is by far the best in the world, Russia or China can't build one as effective as this one, not even on land!
Exactly. Really surprised me he didn’t include UK….
The UK does not have a large landmass and is fairly weell poipulated. That limits the number of airbases and missile silo bases in the UK, giving the then USSR a small set of targets. While not cheap, nuclear subs posses less of a security risk than land bases. You don't have to worry about a couple of drunks thinking it is a good idea to try to get into a sub 100 meters plus in the middle of the ocean. Same can't be said of bases. LOL
The deal with Australian will be a sub of British design.
American tech used but not the family jewels.
UK’s subs are some of the most formidable boats on the water. The only other subs that come close are likely swedens subs….I want to see Sweden step out for Aukus. Their tech would likely be the key to severe dominance from The Soviet and Chinese fleets.
Submarines were never, ever irrelevant. The US operates 10 nuclear carriers, but it has around 75 submarines of various types, including 2 new Virginia boats every year.
People think they aren't important because they don't get a lot of screen time, but then again that is the point.
There are two kind of vessels. U-boats and targets.
I guess that statement rings true to people who only get their military knowledge from movies. Submarines aren't as flashy as other ships and don't work for the camera well.
People don't realize just how damn big they are either. I've seen one sectipn at EB being built - they are MASSIVE when ya see it outside the water.
Submarines are the corner stone for all nuclear powers safety. One submarine can basically destroy any nation thrice over.
They are just out of the limelight yet do a lot when it comes to everything from deterrence, intelligence, and special operations.
They don't call it the Silent Service without reason!
If you are going to have a special on submarine, then you probably should address the fact that although China may have more ships on the water pound for pound, we have about four times as much tonnage so you can count every canoe. They have floating, but it doesn’t make them a battleship.
😮😮
in the next 20 years China is bound to become Superpower if all trends continue. They are using long term planning knowing they can build in peace as no one will ever attack.
When they count our ships they don't count our mothball fleet which I almost as many active ships
Lol no the tonnage is soon gonna be 2 to 1 then 1 to 1
@@Myanmartiger921 more like 3 to 1 we have 20 or 21 super carriers only 11 active
"War is young men dying and old men talking."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
At about 4 minutes in to this video, you state submarines had sunk "BATTLESHIPS"? Being a bit of a naval buff apart from WW 2, I have never red of a WW 1 submarine sinking a Battleship by torpedoes or their deck gun which was their primary weapon.
As to WW 2, three Battleships where sunk by submarines: HMS Royal Oak by U-47, HMS Barham by U-331 and IJN Kongō by USS Sealion.
Now if I am error please correct me.....but I find today so many people can not tell the difference between Warships and Battleship, a very distinctive 'TYPE' of Warship!
In your introduction when you spoke about the 'Turtle" you should have also mentioned the 'Hunley' which was a manually operated submarine created by the Confederates during the Civil War, and if I remember correctly, it sunk a Union ship during the blockade. A very interesting story in history if you've never heard of it, and well worth a mention here, for early historic context. There was even a movie made about it, that tells the basic story.
The Soviets had a series of horrible accidents aboard nuclear subs, from their heavy water reactor leak.
The Taiwan Strait and South China Sea isn't that deep - @300ft in a lot of spots. That limits the ability for a submarine to hide from helicopters and ASW airplanes. Even less water to evade a torpedo homing on you.
Doing a submarine combat mission there could be a death mission for the crew.
That explains why a U.S. sub hit a stealthier object in the region
The explains why the U.S. have delegates that role to their proxy in the area, Australia. America is quite willing to fight Russia and China to the last Ukrainian and Australian.
@@StoutProperyou forgot to the last japanese and last south korea, and filipino
All those countries would choose death to the last man over being ruled by China.
The Subs aren't for attacking through the Strait. They are intended to bottle up the PLAN surface fleet inside the first island chain. Combined with a blockade at Malaccas, the plan is to create a kill box in the SCS.
As always, context is everything. and John Coogan distilled perfectly. Thank you for putting this content for everyone to watch.
Submarines have been the most important thing at sea other than aircraft carriers since their invention. You may have thought they weren't important, but they have been the entire time
As with any other type of weapon there importance and effect has fluctuated as submarines and weaponry to counter them have advanced.
There are two kind of vessels at sea. U-boats and targets.
Aircraft carriers are as relevant as battleships. They will be sunk within days if total war breaks out.
The multi decade plan for the Navy is called Ghost Fleet. Essentially, half the navy would be autonomous - small, medium and large ships and the same for subs. Leave the carriers, mini carriers and other ships manned. I really like this plan and believe it could be extremely effective - imagine a carrier group commanding forty, mission specific ships/subs. Some are doing recon, some laying mines, some searching for mines, others providing Missile defense, some conducting anti submarine warfare, some moving supplies, etc. It's brilliant and the costs of those autonomous ships are far lower due to the fact that there are no people and they're mission specific (hopefully either nuclear or full electric as well but nothing said on that). There's also been an idea thrown around of a "Democratic 1,000 Fleet Navy" - India actually made hints at this. Essentially, all the major democracies, think NATO, Japan, Aussies, India, etc, would chip in a couple hundred ships and coordinate in order to fully secure the global oceans. I love that idea personally. It would Essentially ensure secure trade routes between free nations using oceans which America is becoming less and less willing to do (understandably). This could be a wonderful new model to replace the solo-American ocean security model that's been occurring since Bretton-Woods. Anything that brings all the democracies in better cooperation and coordination with military functions is a win in my book - hopefully it does not take a Chinese invasion to create it (it might - it took WW2 for Bretton Woods).
Also, my English heritage obliges me to correct one thing in this video (it's a wonderful video as always) - The UK is the world's most important island, followed closely by Japan and the Aussies
Why is UK the most important island. You need to back that up with some context unless it’s just your opinion?
One thing to understand about subs is that while they are really good for a launching base for nuclear missiles because of it being invisible from satellites, but as you mentioned they aren't fast or maneuverable compared to conventional subs. Also, they are much louder which makes it easier to be noticed by sonars which kinds of sucks as a sub and if you don't plan to put nuclear missiles, It really doesn't have much merit. So there isn't much rationality purely from a military standpoint for Australia since they are not planing to arm the nuclear subs with nuclear missiles. I think the fact that Australia geting the capability for US and UK subs to get maintenance is rather much more important since those countries would be able to launch nuclear missiles from the middle of the Pacific Ocean would allow them to project much power in the Indo-Pacific region. Countries don't just make military decisions just because of military reasons. Sometimes such decisions are politically motivated and we should not ignore such points.
There is one rational point for Australia to have nuclear powered subs; range! Nuclear powered subs can operate across much larger distances without needing resupply. Australia's nuclear powered subs will easily be able to go from their bases in Western Australia to the Straights of Malacca, and have plent of time to run any missions there. Diesel-electric subs just don't have that endurance. Australia can militarily independently cut off the main trade artery to China with nuclear powered subs.
Diesel electric subs have to surface constantly every few days so it’s not comparable to nuclear powered subs being stealthy.
Just for fun. The first official sub ever used in a combat mission was during the civil war. It killed more operators than enemy ships.
The CSS Huntley, the first submersible to actually sink a ship, deserved a mention at least. Good presentation otherwise.
@@Prolificposter definitely! The poor thing was terrible and sunk from the explosion it created. It wasn't the first time it sunk
Submarine and Anti-Submarine concepts are far too reliant upon Orbital-Space.
Lets see how much different this is from Johnny Harris's video
Man I swear you're the king of audience retention, I always get hyper focused when I watch your videos. 😂
Same
Me too. He does it so well
Same for me
The Nuclear deterrent has an acronym M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction.) This is an appropriate acronym because you would have to be totally stark raving bonkers to even contemplate their usage. As Jason discovered in War Games, the only winning move is not to play.
John your content is well researched and presented in a way for everyone to understand. Keep up the solid work man, stay true to yourself and you're set bud.
It's really not, or he's intentionally being misleading by omission. For example, his comparison of naval power by entirely focusing on number of ships.
Imagine if I told you that my hostile neighbor has 100 weapons, and I only have 1. Obviously I'm in big trouble right?
Well, like John, I'm forgetting to mention that he has 100 knives, and I have SAW light machine gun, a steel reenforced door, and metal bars on all my windows.
That's pretty much exactly what he did comparing the number of Chinese naval ships, to the USN.
You're talking about Johnny Harris right?
Macron is a weenie. Morrison was 100% right to axe the FR sub deal…Delivery was not only “behind schedule,’ FR kept raising the cost of the (old tech) subs…
No, he missed a big chunk on the history and origin of the 11-Dash lines following the 1945 Potsdam Conference in which Stalin, Truman, and Churchill decided to return the islands to China. Get the full facts.
@@sirkl4272 strong argument
Australia had a prime minister who wanted to bully China at the behest of the US. Australia banned Huawei from its plans for 5 G were among 14 complaints China had against Australia. Eventually China instituted a series of economic sanctions against Australia, high tarriffs or banning Australian export to China. The Australian people then voted prime minister Morrison out. AUKUS is really more about getting Australian tax payers to send money to US defense contractors more than anything else. The Subs from AUKUS won't arrive till the 2040's and will cost ~300 billion over the next few decades. A huge amount considering Australia's 1.5 trillion GDP. In the ceramony at the start of the AUKUS deal president Biden famously forgot the name of the prime minister of Australia, PM what's his hame.
In the late 80s, Canada considered purchasing nuclear submarines to defend its arctic sovereignty. US and Russian subs would make visits in its territory unannounced. After lengthy consideration, Canada decided to purchase 4 used Trafalgar class diesel submarines from UK instead. In 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi (the first of 4 subs) made its way from UK to Canada. It caught fire along the way, resulting in one dealth and eight injured.
Wow I did not know this
Great video, but could you please talk about the software defence prime palantir?
Australia does not want nuclear weapons. This was mooted during the late 1960s, but the research and engineering to build Australia's own nuclear weapons were then rejected (it causes a nuclear arms race with it's large neighbors, in particular Indonesia). The nuclear powered boats bought or acquired by Australia is for sinking ships, other submarines and dare it say it, fire cruise missiles at land-based targets.
Well, you forgot about autonomus nuclear submarines that might be new era in submarines. One of them is russian "Poseidon" or status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System. This is submarine with nuclear bomb inside, that goes autonomus among the oceans and can blow up. It is designed especialy for targeting city near the ocean shore and poluting water with radiation. It scares much, because they dont need to acsend or change fuel or other staff. And also this thing is less able to be spoiled. Very dangerous thing. But luckely none of them yet had been launched
autonomous nuclear submarines. . .armed with 4 tubes.
Can lurk on the bottom undetected for months, years.
Small and hard to detect, they have been placed around
the oceans near major world coast lines. I mean will be.
Giant carriers are sitting ducks for airborne drones, jetskis
and submersibles. They might be able to fight off
hundreds simultaneously but not thousands.
After Ukraine, asynchronous just took on a whole new meaning.
A kid masters the video game of drone warfare and take out a tank.
I think it would be really cool to see a new version of submarines be made by the military. A different category then the usual design. One that is meant for way more intricate maneuverability and visibility. Still go with the modern advanced nuclear energy options. Just instead of only the large bulky no visibility submarines. How about some new subs that are highly maneuverable. Sure maybe they can't go to the deepest depths, but they will fill a different role where they can move around and do things and go places that no other sub can..
I think the extremely high water pressure fundamentally limits the maneuverability of submarines. Even aircraft need to deal with wind resistance. Now try turning sharply when then pressure is 100 atmosphere… or 1,000 atmospheres!
@@Ryan256 i totally understand & hear you out about "How much they must respect & engineer around pressure resistance" if they are designing Deep diving vessel's. *But i was trying to point out how it could be beneficial for the military to make Nimble, maneuverable, small agile vessels that dont have to go to extreme depths. Where the military could use them in places, environment's, conditions that other under water vessels couldn't go. (It could be utilized for stealth/reconnaissance missions, etc.) *If they're doing deep dives, that should be with a completely different vessel. But it would be cool to see them create new designs for different engineered niche uses because imo the "classic submarine seems pretty outdated except for very particular uses"
They should give a few of them octopus arms, that would terrify people
@@benmcreynolds8581 Oh, I see. Your idea is more feasible if you're talking about a very small vessel built around a single person operating at shallow depths.
Still, water is more like molasses than air. Think about the maneuverability of a really expensive speed boat vs. a cheap single engine light sport aircraft.
I don't know enough about radar/sonar to tell you if the stealth aspect would be relevant, beyond visual obscurity. I imagine the enemy would quickly adapt to detecting them (because fast and maneuverable vessels generate lots of noise), but they might be effective if developed in secret and suddenly deployed in large numbers.
The other question is weapons payload. It's hard to fit lots of torpedoes in a tiny vessels.
Laser beams or other exotic compact weapons maybe?
Or how about ill-tempered seabass with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads?!
Sorry... that's an Austin Powers reference 😂
The Japanese had human-operated suicide torpedos during WWII, but I think we're both not talking about that! 😂
My guess is what you're describing would work best as an unmanned AI powered torpedo. No human lives would be put at risk and thousands of them would be cheaper than an aircraft carrier.
Even better would be an unmanned torpedo that could loiter at great depths, then suddenly ascend for a sneak attach when an enemy is detected. They could work as a swarm and share sensor information. As soon as one detected an enemy, all the others could swarm in for a concerted attack. 🦈💥
Hydrodynamic is dynamically different only hyper (super cavitating) torpedoes have turning issues at pressure by having a rough skin that drags a small layer of water friction is reduced water and water slips by easier than the smooth metal and water also sonar stealth is enhanced with a layer of air creating an air envelope the torpedo slips in but turning is problematic
I always can't wait for you to post new videos every time. Please do more
Good content John 🎉, do you think deterrence could be used in the tech space?
5:50 Rickover jumped the chain of command and went straight to Nimitz because Nimitz was also a submariner. People are not aware of this because of his achievements as a fleet admiral.
Busnell failed to attached explosive under the British ship because those days the British ships are clad with bronze under the bows. 😂 he couldn’t drill the damn thing..
Actually they were copper sheets nailed in place, same effect, hard to hand drill holes thru!
@@michaelsnodgrass1808 This is where we get the saying 'copper bottomed' implying that something is built to a higher standard. Interesting the copper sheets were put in place to slow down the accumulation of weed adhering itself to the hull which would become a trailing skirt of substantial mass slowing ships down, and causing massive lee way. The copper was also there to try to prevent ingress of a creature called the 'torpedo' worm (which would bore holes through the ship's timber) a century or more before torpedoes were invented.
are you an investor in anduril, or in any of the companies that invested in anduril? either way, i think you should state it when boosting a company because I understand that you are an investor? thanks. good content though (and you've got a very unique voice)
You pointed out that post-World War 2, the USA and the USSR were competing with each other technologically and in other ways. You then show a picture [11:31] of the British computer - the Colossus, being operated at Bletchley Park by ladies from the WRNS. In fact the Colossus was the world's first digital,semi-programmable computer which first saw service in 1943 several years before the earliest American rival.
are you not mixing up nuclear propulsion and being nuclear armed? serious question, as I thought they were different concepts. it seemed like you were talking about being powered by nuclear at the beginning, due to diesel having too many problems, but then you start talking about the missiles it carries. I was actually looking forward to finding out about how these nuclear engines(?) work.
and whether we could have nuclear powered planes, ships, tanks, etc.
if any one could explain if there's a difference, or just correct me if i mixing things up, i'd be grateful, thanks
Believe it or not, it is Theoretically possible to have nuclear powered aircraft. the US came up with some designs in the 60s
The main issue, is size. making a small nuclear reactor is a bit beyond us, especially when the most effective shielding method for radiation requires thick materials. Subs, and large aircraft, are about as small as we can make reactors, at the moment, while also allowing the crew to remain safe.
Also... reactors work basically the same way whether on land or at sea.
Use fusion reaction to create heat. Use heat to make thing spin, typically turbine, typically using steam. Spinny thing makes either electricity, propulsion, or both.
Downsides... well. in the case of an aircraft, they kinda would spread radioactive material around them if they ever suffered an accident and crashed, let alone if they were shot down.
The notion that modern nuclear submarines are "silent" is also a bit of common misconception, in fact, they're noisy little buggers and require some of their crew to use noise-protection gear. The noise level in the engine department can easily reach in excess of 100 decibels which significantly louder than your average subway train.
Inside can be noisy when not on noise-alert status. Outside, if you were blind and in the ocean, the Virginia, Ohio, and especially the Sea-Wolf classes could pass 10 feet behind you and you would NEVER KNOW. You are highly misinformed sir. American submariners haven't worn padded footing since long ago. We are allowed tennis shoes on watch as well as a hat of our favorite team if we choose. But it is not for noise at all. Strictly a morale thing. Motors hang on springs from a shelf which hangs on springs from a wall, which hangs on springs for the module, which is suspended within the pressure hull using hoodoo voodoo. It's not springs, but dampers that are specifically tuned for whatever equipment it will be in conjunction with. Modern nukes can run on low power with NO equipment running, with cooling water circulating strictly from natural drafting- hot rises, cold sinks.....
I will never speak of an American sub engine room. The nuke plant is quiet, I assure you. When backup engines have to be started up, they can be noisy, but they are last resort equipment or run in port during routine testing. That's the only place you'd ever need hearing protection lol. And don't even try to say you're a submariner- no matter what nationality you might be, anyone who even makes a peep about decibel levels even in the kitchen would be court martialed and do time because other than a few officers and the captain and the man that vibration tests everything 24/7 with his handheld stethoscope/oscilloscope, nobody else knows decibel ratings because it's beyond need to know and is most definitely classified Top Secret.
A major turning point in submarine technology occurred around 1940 when the US Navy investigated a way to locate downed pilots at sea.
What they found was a "deep sound channel" that carried sounds for thousands of miles with almost no signal loss.
A serious study of the unexpected ocean acoustic environment followed.
A related achievement was the use of digital signal processing (DSP) to eliminate circuit noise in the analog equipment that previously examined sound signals to locate the specific sources & movements of underwater items.
A digital signal processor immediately transforms every detected signal in an sonar array into an array of digital numbers.
This conversion is done with Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs). From then on, all signal processing is done by using mathematical, rather than electronic, transformations.
The advantage we had over unsuspecting Soviets lasted until a Navy Warrant Officer, Johnny Walker, sold them the secret.
Russians have since learned to make their huge submarines disappear.
Excellent content. You should have millions of subscribers.
….”We, the Evil Few, Who Practice the Art of Assassination in the Depths of the Sea “ …. Great motto for US/UK/AUS nuclear submariners
It is so SICKENING to hear that boilerplate again, “Beijing considers Taiwan to be a renegade province.” Doesn’t anyone have the professional balance to mention what Taipei considers China to be? Similar to Ukraine there needs to be a policy of “Nothing about Taiwan without Taiwan.” They have been a participating member of the modern world economy and an open society much longer than Ukraine has. Time to give Taiwan the respect and fair hearing they have done so much to earn.
When do we ignore history? When is history significant? When is history rewritten?
When you are the victor. Taiwan lost.
one of the first things they tell you in njrotc or any kind of naval class is that when it comes to ocean warfare there are only submarines and targets.
Germany amd japan had the best torpedoes in ww2 our torpedoes sucked and theirs a lot of stories of our torpedoes u-turning and sinking the ship that fured it
Ever heard of the Skval?
Top speed +200 knots!
Supercavitaton rocks!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
Definitely one of very best UA-cam channels on the app top tier!!!!!
This video almost has nothing to do with with the thumbnail and is the history we all know already
When you imply that the Chinese Navy is superior to the US Navy based on hull count, you lose all credibility. Navies aren’t measured in hulls they are measured by tonnage. By tonnage the US Navy is over three times as large as the Chinese Navy. It is larger than the Chinese Navy and Russian Navy combined. In fact the US Navy is larger than the next six navies combined and four of those are allies.
Interesting fact by hulls North Korea’s Navy is over 20% larger than the Chinese Navy.
The Soviet Union was a minor economic force that poured far too much of its money into its weapons. It was never an equal of the United States in any way except for its weaponry, and even that has been called into question.
Same as China, I'll talk. No walk.
@@slimbride777
Unfortunately, the whole world has made China extremely rich, and 90% of the money has gone to their totalitarian government. They can afford to buy lots of weapons, and they are not as dumb as they used to be. We are fortunate that totalitarian regimes have almost always produced militaries that are handicapped by the fear of taking initiative or deviating from the plan provided by the autocrat. But even a handicapped Chinese military with hundreds of thousands men, is still one that can take out a lot of our fighters before their government decides they have had enough.
You Americans are so desperate to try to show and tell everyone that nobody is on your level, which we both know isn’t true, the USSR then had you all shitting yourselves, and china right now is doing the same thing
Australia has the right to defend ourselves and we do not need any license from nobody to protect our territory. Nuclear submarines are conventional.
You kind of misrepresented what happen with the French sub deal. France was behind schedule and was quoting Australia 2/3 more per sub than what was originally quoted. It was plagued with issues with the timeline being extended at least once maybe twice.
How much of the cost and schedule blow-out was due to Australia wanting changes?
@@xoctor None after the inital designs were put forwards, iirc.
The most important island in the world regarding tech* yes. If we lost it to China it would be devastating. But if we lost the UK to China, that would be more impactful to the economy right now.
As an Australian, I have to say for defence we shouldn't have just Nuclear subs. Automomous subs should be something we should also have. It's efficient, probably cheaper, could sink adversaries like specific vessels off of Taiwan and our mainland. (If we were to go to war). Which could also serve to protect our country from invasion. I mean if Mexican Cartels can make their own cheap subs, why can't we make better? Way cheaper options for our military?
Cheap subs are loud and have to come up for air. In a world of stealthy nuclear subs anything less than that against an adversary is just a liability.
It’s significantly more nuanced than this man. A lot of it has to do with geopolitics. The world is in the process of becoming multipolar after many years of a western hegemony. It’s a good move imo
@@Daydreamave Do you know anything about autonomus submarines? Are they loud machines? This ain't sarcasm, it's a literal question I have as I am not sure.
@@lukewilliamrimmington I actually don’t. But I help build the Virginia Classes. 🙌🏼
@@Daydreamave That's sick! Would autonomous minisubs do the same do you think in wartime scenarios as well or would they be more like reaper drones for stealth like the US has?
Your videos are very educative,john🎉
Wow. What Leonardo DeVinci said regarding sea and man was pretty acurate, despite being made long before the advent of the first underwater combat vessel!
I agree. The music on videos is a nonsense.
Like those old cowboy's movies that i love are all contaminated with such an annoying music that sometimes i have to turn the sound off.
You took a *lot* of inspiration from johnny harris video lol
"And despite being the world's largest steel producer, China was unable to produce the high quality steel to case the ink-dispensing ball, resulting in the steel being imported from Germany or Japan." - 2017
That's about their inability to make a ballpoint pen until 2017. I think their military might be just another paper tiger, just like Russia's has turned out to be.
1:19 One small startup made us all afraid of them. Lol
Hey John and team, can you change the highlight color of purple? It’s really hard to read the headlines when it’s black on dark purple. Thank you for all of these videos!!!
Too bad they didn't buy the French conventional submarines along with the nuclear submarines because we could have had the glorious acronym of "FAUKUS" meeting in San Diego 😂
Winnie: Where the subs at?
Pink Slave: Right away, boss!
Winnie: What is dis?
Pink Slave: You said you wanted a Subway sandwich! 🤣🤣🤣
Great video. Thanks for all your hard work! Can you turn down the gain on the background music?
As a retired O-6 hopefully the Senate will block this. Australia is not capable of operating and maintaining them.
Pretty sure subs are important to an island mid sized nation like Australia that depends on shipping
They are not vulnerable to hyper sonic missiles as surface ships are
We need to take heed of Paul Keating's concerns about Aukus.
"China stronger than the Soviet union ever was" lol.
Was searching for this comment…
Since we are at submarines… Soviet Union produced 240 nuclear submarines, China produced how much? 10?😀 30 years later..
Aircraft carrier? Soviet copy:)
Nuclear weapons? 2% of what Soviets had 60 years ago?😁
Tanks? Soviets 50k, China 5k.
…
The small startup oceangate should be highlighted for their magnificent engineering
They used black men to invent all this yet relegated them
Isn't water H20 so there is actually oxygen under water, subs just can't convert it.
[10:02]
The UK is a part of the nuclear triad also, according to ChatGPT.
Wow never knew subs were so important.. What about aircraft carrier subs like the Imperial Japanese tried to create at the end of WW2.. Guess you can use multiple attack drones instead of Manned Aircraft these days 🤔
My question is to what extent these subs in Australia with the 330 Billion investment might be countered by Chinese drone technology. I just look at the efficiency of robotic-based tech in space, combat drones, etc vs manned fighters and think really if the Chinese want to counter the threat to this technology it probably won't be as hard as people think.
Why are you ignoring Palantir?
I don’t know why but I have a big interest in submarines more than all other military vehicles and even above NASA they are just amazing
All this without mentioning AIP and new Batteries, check Singapore's latest submarines, and AIP is substantially quieter than nuclear...
So basically one side or the other will stop at nothing to preserve their ways,,, what about us in the middle???
The Trident is part of the Triad. So confusing. So many metaphors. Damn Greeks, they started it all.
Fun fact: conventional diesel-electric subs can carry nuclear weapons too
He said the “Dive LD” was a bit smaller than the Ohio class submarine. He then went on to say the Dive LD was just 20ft long….. ummm that is a WHOLE LOT smaller than an Ohio class submarine LOL. The Ohio class Submarine is in excess of 550 ft brother, Did I miss something there?
Such quality content
Two minutes in and it was obviously propaganda and a significant shakedown
Submarines are so cool and great video man :]
Had to stop watching / listening because of the bleeping music. Not good at all for the brain. Overly done talk versus music. Skip the music instead of spamming bleeping music!
Yes music is too loud. Dear John, I would turn down the gain on music by 50%.
agreed, music was a little much on this one.
16:03
Canceling the contract for the submarines wasn't the problem.
The *way* it was done, keeping Europe completely I'm the dark and destroying multiple European geopolitical, economical and diplomatic plans and also showcasing US continued tendency towards treating the EU more and more as a adversary instead of an ally is what pissed us off.
The announcement may have interfered with the election in France.
It humiliated the EU that was simultaneously publishing their long term plans for the region (where Europe *does* have territory *and* interests).
And it undermined NATO.
Also, this was back when there was still quite a bit of issues between the EU and UK due to brexit.
Something that didn't exactly help matters.
Because essentially this interfered with internal European politics both within countries and between them ass well as with our interests abroad and our economy...
So, yes, we where pissed, and not just France.
Other Europeans too.
US aid to Europe and especially Ukraine after the invasion has patched up a lot of our frustrations with the US, but before that we definitely where not happy with the country...
The US was simply not seen as reliable.
And France is reliable???
@@michaelsnodgrass1808 While their ambitions can be annoying as heck at times, yes, they're actually more reliable then the US on average.
That said, they have the same kind of messed up first past the post system that are messing up the political climate in most of the anglophone countries...
@@michaelsnodgrass1808 Consider looking up the video that Perun made about France recently.
More proper Names for the Seas:
For the Ocean water near Vietnam,
We should call this the "Vietnam Sea".
Not the misnamed: "South China Sea". As China already claimed the (North) China Sea.
This way, everyone in the world will understand the Vietnam legitimate claim to their water.
Thank you.
HD
I almost agree with china on some issues. Like just this week they cut infront of one of our ships and planes. We dont want chinese battle ships crusing off our coast so why do we do it to them. Just imagine a russian or chinese desroyer only 100 miles off the west or east coast. We the people would raise heck about letting them that close. But we do it every other week to them.
The problem, is the area China considers owned by it, that aren't.
@@Destroyer_V0 i understand but i for one dont think a 20 mile shore buffer is right. No nation should be allowed to have warships within 500 miles of another's coast line to me
@@evrydayamerican That literally doesn't work for any nation in and around the south china sea. If they all had areas of ocean they controlled 500 Nautical mile zones? Lets say, china and vietnam. Their areas of control over the ocean already butt up against one another. THEN, you take into account china making a bunch of islands in the south china sea, and measure, again, 500 nautical miles from each of those? NO ONE HAS ANY CONTROL OF THAT SEA BUT CHINA, because they can enforce their control of the zone, and no one else can. Is that fair? That China can, theoretically, sail their ships right up to the coast of another nation and invade them cause they own some islands within 20 nautical miles, let alone 500 NM of the coastline of them?
Or how about europe? The danes with their control into and out of the baltic sea, and the mediterannian with a bunch of small islands in it controlled by larger nations, would again, mean certain nations can bully others into sayin noooo, this is MY SEA, LEAVE. Same goes for anyone trying to pass the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Warships have long range weapons, the further they are kept away the better. But it is literally impossible, without breaking international codes or asking for permission then (which may not be given if another nation feels strongly against what you're doing), for certain nations, lets say france, to move their fleet from their northern coast into the Mediterranean, if they needed to! Same goes for the US in fact, trying to move their fleet from the east to west coasts, if other nations, again, decided to extend the area of ocean they own such as mexico, and brazil.
@0:14 Why is the south china sea overlapping Palawan now?
This video is very similar to Johnny Harris one about submarines
Well nutrieno detectors can sort of identity where the nuclear subs are . With 3 detectors around the world one could triangulate any nuclear activity
Yea and we should worry there nuclear subs that can stay under water for three years full of nuclear weapons
Another great episode John. True in every regard and so on-point. As things get more involved in Ukraine and the russian civil war escalates we cannot take our attention away from this situation in the South China Sea. China has committed to this strategic plan a decade ago. Their production of new Naval ships SO FAR outstrips the US production capabilities - it's scary.
There's a difference between number of ships and gross tonnage of those ships. In this (actuallly important) stat the US is still quite far ahead.
@@CentauriSphere Don't bet your future - on semantics. China IS creating their Navy and adding new ships MUCH faster than the US and does have MORE ships currently. Soon the Chinese Navy 'tonnage' will also be higher.
@@bc-guy852 yes china is adding more tonnage. But the quality of those ship as well as solider are just as important.
War are not won alone on size of armies and weapons.
@@jayakumar9976 I do NOT disagree! I just wish everyone (on this continent) were much more aware of how invested China is - in the RAPID development of their fleets (naval and other) and military capabilities in all areas.
They're building islands in the South China Sea and putting air and naval bases on them - claiming them as their sovereign land...
Their claim to all the resources inside the '9-lines' region is madness - they are trying to force...
They created life-size mock-ups of US aircraft carriers in the desert - to refine their bombing skills to the 'muscle memory' level - - all based on US aircraft carriers...
Not good. No good can come of all this buildup. (Unless you're in the Defence Industry).
@@bc-guy852" life size mockup of us carriers " - That bad. I think china now know they can't beat USA head to head.
So they will wait for like may be five or ten years.
What dangerous about China is there are ready to play the long term game.
I go to sleep to your voice every night, just a easy listen
Well done John, as a content creator, I understand the effort to make a video this detailed.
Geopolitics is so much fun
Nice way to hide self advertising.
@@coopzcustomz693 yh and also to appreciate his efforts, it's not easy to even script a video of this length
Bro have you not being posting or is YT silencing you?
Am seeing this with other channels that make important work like you.
Very cool
There were submarines around n the Civil War -- the famous Monitor.
NOT a submarine, it just tended to act like one in moderate to heavy seas!
Palmer Lucky looks just like my weed dealer in college
0:00: 🚢 Submarines are becoming increasingly important in the geopolitical landscape, particularly in the South China Sea.
4:21: 🚢 German U-boats transformed perceptions of submarines and became an essential asset for any modern Navy.
7:53: 🌍 The concept of deterrence in geopolitics is based on the idea that countries build big militaries and advanced weapons to prevent wars rather than win them.
11:21: 🌍 The world transitioned from a bipolar to a unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but now we are living in a world where China is rising as a major power.
15:13: 🇦🇺 Australia cancels submarine deal with France and signs a new agreement with the US and UK, angering France.
18:51: 💣 The collapse of the Soviet Union and China's reaction to it have influenced the current global power dynamics and the need for advanced submarines.
22:23: 🚢 The Sea Hunter is an autonomous ship that can track submarines without a crew, but there is a need for autonomous submarines.
Recap by Tammy AI
Perfect analysis John you are the best
The Ohio class is to be gradually replaced by the Columbia class beginning in 2031.
Bro I heard their were some in the civil war too
UK also has nuke triade. Vanguard-class subs.
The triad requires 3 different delivery methods. Including by air and by land based systems. The former the UK certainly used to operate, with their V bombers, but those have been retired for decades at this point.
Sounds like WW3
"famously there isn't much oxygen under water"
uh.. but there is, because water is mainly oxygen. In fact I'm pretty sure there are more oxygen atoms in water than in the air :)
One just went to disturb the Titanic and blew tf up