American, British & French Submarine Technology Compared l Why Australia Scrapped France Deal
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2021
- France is furious after Australia scrapped its $90 billion submarine deal. Reports say Australia scrapped the deal because it wanted to pursue nuclear-powered subs with the US and UK. Paris has called the cancellation a stab in the back with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian saying relations with the US and Australia were in a crisis.
#australiascrapsfrenchsubmarinedeal #aukus #nuclearsubmarine
Follow CRUX on Instagram (@crux.india): bit.ly/3qSFx1K
Follow CRUX on Facebook: bit.ly/2Lte7iF
#GetCloserToTheNews with latest headlines on politics, sports and entertainment on news18.com bit.ly/2Y4QccL
Also watch:
Crux One Take: bit.ly/3oNaLWf
Crux Files: bit.ly/3mnbnjW
Crux BTS: bit.ly/3oCjbQE
what the Australians, Americans and English are doing against France is just scandalous, a dagger in the back, after 10 years of development. Frankly, I'm ashamed. it's something we'll pay for, you don't betray your allies that way.
US always deos it!
Being lapdog to the US and kowtowing to some of their worse crass "business" practices is what it was.
Unfortunately France didn't help with their breach of contract on delivery time
@@rogermckinnon5738 ...maybe but France was honest at all levels, no lies, no secrecy! no betrayal....this is not our case.
Did Australia remember that when they ordered Submarines to France they didn't want nuclear Submarines ???? France can build nuclear submarines... so where is the problem apart of a geopolitical issue ? France is the only occidental country to have territories in the this ocean...
Yes France will defends his territories in pacific if a conflict happen but will UK does as it has no territories there?
I think that the feeling of betrayal felt in France is not mainly due to the loss of the submarine contract. For several years, France has been implementing a defense policy in the Indo-Pacific based on its relations of trust with Australia. The two countries have a common history rich in sacrifices. Nobody in France has forgotten the Australian Expeditionary Force during the 1st World War and the blood shed on the Turkish coasts. What stunned France was the emergence without consultation of an alliance that excluded France and destroyed its efforts to secure its territories in the Indo-Pacific and its defense policy in this strategic area. The betrayal is there according to us (yes I am French which explains my poor English ...)
Australia has isolated France and I will find it justified tomorrow, in the event of a problem, to send you back to your allies for whom business as usual is the rule. I think you broke much more than a contract, a trust that we thought was mutual... and that exlain our reactions.
Now which country has the best submarine I don't know... It's a world of secrets and much smarter than me the one who pretends to answer it. I'm not sure that's the question ...
Betrayal - france performance of the sub contract is what caused it , if anyone should feel betrayed its Australia.... If the US can build a 8000 tonne nuke attack sub for 2 billion each why cant france build a 5200 tonne nuke sub for 1.4 billion?? for that 3.5 billion already spend by Australia they should have 2 subs in the water by now instead of nothing 0 to show for it.... Australia loses almost 4 billion and france loses nothing but its reputation caused by its own delays do they really expect australia to keep paying for promises ?
Hi Nic,
We cannot seriously compare a nuclear submarine to a conventional one... Australia ordered conventional submarines, it is a fact... The said submarines did not exist and they had to be designed. This is the main reason for the substantial price of the French offer, to which is added the desire to produce in Australia.
If we talk about price I would like to know what you are basing it on because in my opinion Australia will not receive an Aukus submarine before around 2040 and nothing is defined on their price. If this happens, the Australian economy will not participate...
You can put the blame on France but wait 5 or 10 years and we'll talk about it. It's all political, a desire for Australia to join the Aukus and nothing more. It is not a question of performance... although the Anglo-Saxon community persists in denying France competence in submarine matters, which does not help the damage suffered by France. For the record, even the Australian Prime Minister felt that the Australian choice was a mistake.
And now, at the beginning of 2023, it feels like some people in Australia are waking up hungover and realising that the pretty bride that they were promised (the UK or USA subs) is not really that pretty and won't be there in the time that they believed...
But not a lot will remember that they broke their engagement with a fiancée they knew they could have had, and will only lament on the promise that they believed...
Weird situation XD
we should have continued with France to build nuclear boats. Less strings attached than with US. Plus we should also get new conventional boats from Germany. A mixed fleet
@@alanbstard4 There was never an agreement to build nuclear subs with France, the agreement was based on diesel powered subs. The manner in which Scott Morrison cancelled the FrancoAus deal was shameful. I am yet to find information that clearly articulates the reason why American nuclear subs are the best, british second and french third. What is clear, is the fact that the US/UK agreed to share nuclear sub technology with Australia hence the reason Scott Morrison was very quick to change camps. Who's to say that France was not prepared to supply Nuclear subs to Australia. I certainly can't... Cheers
Barracuda (or Suffren) class are nuclear powered boats, Australia requested a specific diesel powered version that didn't exist and it was adamant they had to be made in Australia. And of course, it ends up buying US nuclear ones off the shelf... what was the point of the tender again?
It comes down to the whims and fancies in the captain's call . Turnbull was captain then Morrison is. Turnbull is francophile, Morrison is francoskeptic. Ill just add that AUKUS subs are unsafe if in verted too long as in conflict situation. Just musing that if french submarine is compared to a snail as in some comments, well ............
yes and US will build them in US and will never share the tech either....
Furthermore, Australia does not have the capability (meaning the facilities) to maintain a nuclear sub. This is precisely why they asked for Diesel/electric subs first. Now, how will they proceed for maintenance ? Even with a base, there is complete logistic chain to build for this. My feeling is that they will send the subs to UK or USA. Brillant guys in terms of independance, really brillant !
@@yvesd_fr1810 you don't need special shore facilities with French boat
Why did the Australians order a french from origin nuclear design boat to convert it in a diesel electric one? Just to break the deal and order a nuclear sub from the Americans. Was it to easy to order a nuclear boat from the beginning?
It'll likely be a British based sub not an American one. The British Astute class production is now finishing up so that leaves many engineers available to train their Australian counterparts that and the lower crew requirements means more than likely astute will form the basis of the Australian sub.
US and Uk never gave them approval for anything nuclear and Australia doesnt have the know how to do it alone. Dont you think Australia wanted that the whole time, when China started to blackmail every country in the asia pacafic with there land grab thats when the nuke offer started
they thought people may not accept nuke boats so they got a French nuke boat, converted to conventional, so if and when public accepted nuke boats they would place nuke powerplant straight in
Only 7 countries have nuclear powered submarines with Australia making it 8 when delivered - that tells you just how niche the technology involved is.
Thats a big IF right there
Which are the 7 ?
@@Dhksksjjsjjs Russia, china, usa, france, uk, India
@@arindamhalder5023 That'6 not 7
@@VersusARCH Brazil also signed a deal with France for transfer of technology and assistance to build nuclear subs based of French scorpene class diesel electric subs, which the French are building for Jndia and Brazil. Hypothetically it could be 8 countries operating nuclear subs by 2030s
The only great thing about this channel is the sound tracks are lit
Australia asked for non nuclear (this part of the world is a non nuclear zone) sub in 2014 that is why only Japan, Germany and France competed for the contract to supply 12 sub with diesel with fabrication in Australia. Now they change their mind so lets see where this take them.
It takes them to a better stronger sub fleet alot better technology to pretty simple
@@leeholmes9962 In theory yes but still could be many problems... what if they pick the Astute replacement but BAE cant get the US combat system to work they are having that problem now with the Type 26 frigates from the UK. They will also need to grow the sub force by 400% which i dont even think is possible, x 6 collins with 52 crew vs 8 nuke subs with 130-150 crew each
who says this part of the world is a non nuke zone?
@@alanbstard4 the Australians say so. They have always been strongly against everything nuclear. They don’t have nuclear power plants, no nuclear weapons, no nuclear submarines, they’ve always forbidden nuclear subs or nuclear powered surface ships to dock in their ports.
Navy is first line of defence for partially landlocked countries
Edits : it is major line of defence for island countries like Australia !!!!
Australia is not landlocked. What are you on about?
@@GurkiratXSingh hahaha cheers!
Australia isn’t just not landlocked.
Australia has no land borders with any country.
What are you on about?
Henry Australia isn’t an island, it’s a continental sized country……but I would consider it a giant island with no land border.
@@siadwarsame2045 he edited her comment but before it was saying how aussie was bordering countries making it landlocked he then edited his comment making my one out of context
What you ommited in your video (on purpose or not) is that the contract was initially based on conventional subs not nuclear powered. You also did not mentioned that French Barracuda shortfin is also a nuke subs. It was originally designed as a nuke subs and its conventional version is only for export purposes. In addition Suffren Class French nuke sub is actually one of the most advanced if not the most advanced submarine in the world since its conception is the most recent. Furthermore, if the real reason of all that was that Australia changed its mind and finally realised they needed non conventional subs instead of diesel powered ones, France would have been not only "delighted" to sell nuclear powered subs to Australie but also in a much faster way than UK or USA will do.
Australia wanted to renew quickly its old fleet of Submarines, now they will have to wait 20 to 25 years before getting its first nuclear sub because UK and USA are not able to deliver faster!!!!
So the morality of that shit is that UK and USA fucked the French government and Naval Group company and they fucked Australian government too!!!
They could not admit and tolerate that France could by this sale put a foot in their zone of political and commercial influence. Especially since China has officially become the future adversary for the USA to monitor and control.
And in the end, those who really get fucked very deeply are the Australians to whom they had to put a lot of pressure and above all make them fabulous promises that they knew they could not keep.
So in the end, guess who's being really screwed up 😅😏🤣🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘
Pakistan has worlds best flying submarine.
Jf27
what😂😂
Junk fighter
Hila le pakistan award milega aapko.
Donkey lovers
US subs will be delivered in 20 years. By that time who knows what China will be up to. The costs are already increasing because of US inflation rate. Fance had proposed the nuclear subs technology and was eager to transfer it, US is not. Only 8 billions euros out of 36 were going to France, the rest was dedicated to build subs factories in AU. Remeber F35 and Afghanistan ... And by the way, the chineese army has a really small budget compared to the US one, so what's the deal (again). Good luck AU...
After years ofbreached contract by the French to build obsolete subs for Australia absolutely nothing was done so the government of the day full flushed the deal with the French. France was unreliable and untrustworthy in their disingenuous promises
Auss is supported in the mean time by American submarines as part of the deal....America is also offering lend lease phily class for short term use. Auss has the best luck..... its not like france was doing anything faster you know!
France promises a lot of things - there subs were 4 years late not a single one was even started in 7 years after they won the contract which is terrible... yet strange how they demand compensation , usually the maker of the boat pays penalties for broken promises not the buyer paying for the sellers mistakes. France also promised pump jet proposion on a diesel sub that was impossible and nothing but a marketing ploy its amazing defence personnel fell for that as both the US and russia cant even do that its not feasible
the chinese army budget is the second highest in the world and if you factor in there small salaries and what they can buy for that money eg they can train 4 people for every 1 US person in costs then they both would be similiar. Australia has an army budget at least 5 times bigger than Indonesia does that mean Australia is far stronger in army - not even close, Indonesia is 9 times bigger even great quality of Australia cant make up that huge difference
@@nic7048 Inferior is still inferior no matter what color you paint it. There is so much about china's military that you don't understand, and could never fathom.
The next logical question for the Aussies is to ask the U.K. or U.S. to lease one or two sub out of their construction lines. The U.K. has the Astute line still up. The U.S. has the Virginia line still up. Both the U.K. and U.S. could take a schedule hit - extend their lines out a year or two - without major impact to their armed forces.
It first needs to build the support facilities for them... If they haven't already been built in secret...
I really can't see that happening. A nuclear sub is the most advanced and lethal technology a country owns, even the screw is top secret. As close as the UK and Australia are, I doubt the UK would loan an Astute class to anyone.
If anything, the US would just send more US-operated submarines to the region.
Astute production is now finishing up so that leaves many engineers available to train their Australian counterparts that and the lower crew requirements means more than likely astute will form the basis of the Australian sub.
What are the odds the USA leases a couple Los Angeles Class Subs to Australia to train on?
Meanwhile NZ and England choose to stay alive rather than playing Kirikit 😝😂🙊
Epic
UK
England is uk🤣
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Kiwis are smarter, they don’t want to be a vassal state for the USA like UK and OZ. I think they should cancel their 5 eye membership as well.
The French Barracuda class is nuclear powered. The Australians were converting it, at great expense, to conventional. The scarping of the deal has nothing to do with nuclear versus conventional technology as the french subs could have been nuclear if the Australians had wanted.
The French won the bid for a diesel powered sub to suit our needs with a diesel version of their barracuda. It was up to them to design the conversion and not us. And while we changed our mind and went nuclear the French sub couldn’t be considered because it has to be re fuelled every 7-10 years. Which we won’t be able to do as we don’t have a nuclear industry to do this. US technology dosnt need to refuel for the life of the sub which is the only way we would go nuclear propulsion. The AUKUS deal is a lot more than just the sub deal.
@@garyhankinson5695 it also means that Australian shipyards won’t be able to build them since one builds a nuclear submarine around the reactor. The French contract allowed Australia to acquire the industry to build its own submarines, the Aukus contract won’t.
@@manuelatreide Australia has built submarines before. But could not start work on the French ones because they were having trouble with the design to convert their nuclear sub to diesel. That's a French problem not ours.
@@garyhankinson5695 Why didn’t we buy the nuclear one from the French in the first place? This current nuclear sub acquisition had been in the planning for 18 months between Australia, Britain and the US, so we could have informed the French 18 months ago of our intention but didn’t. Our fault twice over.
@@raymondmckinley5955 not disputing it could of been handled better. But we can't buy nuclear subs from France as they have to re fuelled every 7-10years and we don't have a nuclear industry to do that. The US technology has the reactor to last the life of the sub without refuelling. Basically it will come like a sealed unit and we don't have to refuel it. Also the deal is more than just the subs. It's a lot of technology sharing and we have the opportunity to make money selling more defence systems to the US and UK.
You forget to metion that the Barracuda class SM has the ability to launch a transport vehicule for special operation forces - crew of 15... And that state of the art propulsion system has a very reduced nois singature.
Throw a couple SeaWolf class subs into the order. Need a couple Ferraris to go with the Bentleys. 😉.
The seawolf is the loudest sub the americans ever built ....
A relic of the cold war
@@hoffmanstream1107 So loud she sailed right by NATO adversaries completely undetected in war games whilst crawling along at a lowly speed of “only” 30 knots.
Yeah, she’s loud alright.
@@feliscorax So did a swedish sub to a US carrier group , still it doenst mean she is not loud ...
Lots of tactics to deploy to be more stealthy .
The US navy itself says the seawolf is the loudest nuclear sub they have built .. look it up
@@hoffmanstream1107 Are you kidding me, pal? The Seawolf is noted as having a quieter acoustic signature travelling at 30 knots than a Los Angeles-class has when berthed alongside at the quay. She is not a nosy boat - far from it.
Not made anymore. The best US sub ever made.
Excellent Vidio dear 🙏 greeting from Indonesian traditional gold finder friend 🇲🇨✋👍👍
@Kerala No1 yes of course
Indonesia, Phillipines, and Australia need to make out navies stronger. Work together against China
It's Australia's money & their interest
I have the best submarine and I should know..............I play 'Spot the Submarine' with my wife in the bath every night!
It's so small and stealthy, she can't find it.
You forgot a lot of major points:
- Australian asked first for Diesel / electric subs
- the French have nuclear powered subs too
- the US has provided this techno to they UK
If they Australian want nuclear sub, why not issuing a request for tender ?
as an Australian allow me to answer, first of all when the submarine deal was first announced, tensions between Australia and China weren't high, secondly the deal was in crisis long ago, the french kept raising the price, and the first subs weren't even due til 2050, and a big part of the plan was that it would be built in Australia but even that's looked like it wasnt gonna work, there was talk about a year ago to buy german subs instead, but then the US offered their technology to the Australia for a cheaper price u cant say no to that
@@GoldenJet-bahaa price of subs increase cz olevery year australia navy asked to demonstrate the subs..... and bringing the subs to australian port and demonstrate costs millions of $ .....we don't have the perfect breakdown of $ thats 1 factor to raise the price
@@GoldenJet-bahaa let's see your new deal:) nobody know anything about it yet
@@GoldenJet-bahaa first sub in 2050??? This is absolutely false! Being an Australian do not give you the right ti provide fake news...
US subs are cheaper?? They are just 3 times more expensive per sub...
Moreover you do not provide any arguement against what I said...
Det correct
As an indication: French nuclear-powered submarines are 3 times cheaper than those built in the United States.
3 times less effective..need refueling every 10 years..us subs..30.
@@xenophonBC Sir, having worked all my life in shipbuilding, I can hardly see, even if this ship is built entirely of stainless steel, a ship remaining at sea for 30 years (and I'm not even talking about the crew's provisions). But hey, I might be wrong, since the USA is populated by superheroes ^^. And then after all this time on board, the crew will be ready for an expedition to Alpha Centauri, although already old.
@@zorbeclegras5708 What?
@@xenophonBC it 's because french nuclear sub use low grade uranium for security in case of war and need refueling every 10 years . US submarine use military grade uranium very radioactiv in case of explosion and need no refueling . It 's a choice
@@stephen10. Do you really think a submarine must stay 30 years underwater :) !?
Up to now, France don't want to share its nuclear technology. Its independance is over the deal, that's why France never proposed such a nuclear submarine to Australia or any other country. As a french, I prefer this doctrine than make money but risk to get involved in too complex relationships.
I genuinely admire that you go it alone. And have some real badass technology.. very intelligent people..but saying that there is also the factor that you want it all your way. And if you don't get your way then you become the petulant miserable unapproachable people you are.. the germans are relishing it bigtime.
If it’s going to be your last meal before your sub sinks , you better hope you had a French cook !
These are nonsense techs
Imrand khan can defeat these techcraps by swimming with Chinese used underwears
Also Crux forgot to mention about paxtan's solar powered submarines which paxtan army is fishing with in the Rawalpindi ocean
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This video is a collection of lies:
1) the French minister NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS A STAB IN THE BACK. He exactly said: " c'est un coup dans le dos".
However almost all English speaking medias translate "coup" as "stab", which is wrong.
In this context, "coup" peut être traduit par blow, punch, trick BUT IN NO CASE BY STAB.
A stab is a KNIFE BLOW. There is NO mention of a knife in the French minister's speech.
It is not difficult to understand why the English speaking medias are spreading intentionally an erroneous translation: this is just another trick in our back.
2) The French submarines ARE nuclear_powered; it was the Aussie govt request to de-nuclearise them !
@Yesumani Tadigoppula I say that because it's true, not because I'm French.
Australian sub contract with France was a on job from the start.
Firstly Aust. Politicians wanted a conventional sub to please the Greens party and to prop up Liberal politicians seats in South Australia. They wanted a bit of everything - it was a dud. They were supposed to be 90% made in South Australia using French technology.
2) the French sales team said they could do it - convert Nuclear powered subs to diesel.
They promptly went back to France and said that the subs were being made there and it would create 4,000 jobs.
3) Aust. Content shrank from 90% down to 10%.
4) After 7 years nothing had been done but French wanted $7 billion for the blueprint.
5) the cost escalated from $47 billion to $90 billion with an estimated lifelong cost in excess of $300 billion.
6) New Australian Govt decided to cancel the contract for poor performance ( no performance) and go Nuclear powered instead.
7) the more France gets its knickers in a twist the more it advertises its POOR PERFORMANCE.
8). Thank you China for your bullying threats and France like attitudes - you pushed Australia into AUKUS and these upgraded subs.
@@mangojack1487 poor performance... One of our submarine virtually sunk USS carrier group in exercice.
@@mangojack1487 Yep, your reply has all the bits that most media and virtually all French commentary on this misses. The French failed - repeatedly - to meet any of the contractual obligations they had with Australia on this submarine program. Point blank reneged on most of them because they were so confident we had no alternative. It should have been ended a year or two ago just based on that but wasn't because nuclear subs weren't an option then. Also French nuclear subs are not an option because they require refuelling every 10 years which requires a nuclear industry Australia doesn't have - and which the UK and USA subs don't require.
And maybe you can provide sources?
Because The terms of The contract signed between France and Australia are easily found on The Internet, but all the hogwash you just typed has no backing.
Just for information, when is The first US sub to be delivered?
3:23 - the patrolling time discrepancy could be best solved by establishing forward operating bases on Manus island in the Bismarck Sea and Christmas Island, just off the coast from java. Transit distances from HMAS base Sterling in Perth to either the South China Sea or East China Sea would be cut from 3,500 nm to under a third of that. As a consequence - on station patrol time would increase from 3-4 weeks to over 2 months per deployment. No need to go nuclear for THAT.
Or the Cocos Keeling...yes forward basing sounds good if you can afford to defend them....not really a good value spend of limited defence budget and limited manpower.....
@@grahammorgan3858 huh? ScoMo has just committed us to a $200 billion dollar nuclear sub program … or more … and it’s the cost of establishing FOBs that worries you. … mate …
Too far away from industrial centres to be of any value.
Won’t cover the pacific for extended deployments though. Cannot give the Chinese/Russians such a clear operational advantage. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire….
completely agree and building bases there is cheap or the same price as building more on the east coast.... the only main reason for Australia to get the nuke subs is the huge wasted transit time. collins class is better around islands its just getting there its the problem
Good article,just one point to make.There is certainly a difference of opinion over which boats are the quietess.
Barracuda Can Be Switched to Diesel to Nuclear Power....But it's a Costly Affair....🧐
It was originally nuclear but Australia asked for conversion to diesel electric.
The Yellow Submarine is the best in the world. The Beatles approves.
the real world is harsher. live in your cocoon. be aware.
They've thought the ozzies where daft lads they obviously aren't
Australia choosed to buy 12 diesel barracuda and canceled it because "they want nuclear"... An you put the specs of the nuclear powered french barracuda because it exist in diesel and nuclear... Try to do same thing when you order your next diesel mercedes and after, buy a brain.
You obviously know nothing about what was occurring on the ground, opinions based on ignorance say more about you than perhaps you realise.
Australia has a right to defend itself.
Against what? American and British price gouging or against French reliability?
@@mnnh3317 …..Don’t talk shit….They are going to receive the best there is in the world
@@mnnh3317 You really should talk to an Aussie.
@@chairde I’d love to, especially when when our Australian friends find out what the bill for these subs is going to be. Scott Morrison has signed off a blank cheque for UK/US Defence contractors. There was no mention of cost cost caps at the announcement , no other bidders involved, paving the way for the invoice to be whatever the contractors want it to be. Mark my words, the French Deal will look like a relative bargain next to this.
What the Australian govt should have done is agree to open a bidding process and allow Us and UK contractors (and maybe even French ones for that matter) to offer tenders for competing nuclear sub designs based on their own latest gen submarines. Then RAN could set out its design and capability requirements and set out its pricing framework well in advance and then select a winner and proceed having come to an agreement on her terms. What will happen now is that a consortium of Uk and US contractors will present a design or a number of designs to the RAN which will guarantee the respective contractors secure as much revenue stream as possible and look after their own interests. Because it would be a closed process, there will be little incentive to drive down costs for the contractors and Australia will end up paying a premium (to put it mildly) for its nuclear subs……
@@mnnh3317 you seemed very annoyed. Are you French?
That teaches the french not too trust people that came from a British penal colony 🤔🤭🤣
They'll get the cancellation money. They won't be too unhappy. In fact I wouldn't be too surprised they knew it was a sham offer from the start and did not spend almost any money trying to fulfill it, but they have to make it look like they were genuinely let down...
Funny.. I've never heard China threaten Australia about anything..... and if China is so much our enemy then why are we giving them primary assets ?... trading freely with them.... where are all these so called threats ?
China is quietly advancing its military capability. They will become more assertive especially in the region they regard as their sphere of influence over the next 50 yrs
@@mnnh3317..If we're so concerned about China's 'aggression' then why are we selling them any asset they want at fire sale prices ? and continue to do so ? then turn round and accuse them daily that they are the enemy.....
Australia's treachery knows no bounds. In the end anglo blood is thicker than water. To achieve a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific including the Tasman sea, perhaps Australia should buy Chinese nuclear submarines.😮
Suffren Baracuda is the world's best nuclear attack Submarine,manily it's lesser in length and size as compared to other heavy Submarine.😎
what do mean it’s lesser in length and size? France’ suffren class nuclear attack sub is longer than the British astute class…..even though the astute class is slightly heavier.
the US Virginia class is lot bigger than both the French and the UK subs.
1.43 Actually the idea was to build a proven design from Japan, but erasing a political rival's legacy and paying back a political ally was a better use of other people's money.
Yeah, it made no sense to custom design the French nuclear sub to be conventionally powered. Australia needs to buy subs off the production line without modifying them.
Don't forget the subs are really a job creation project in marginal electorates....any defence value is mearly a by product...nothing seems to have actually changed
@@grahammorgan3858 It evolved into a jobs project. But the original plan was to have Japan build the subs in Japan.
Australia shouldn't endanger their security by turning a military project into a jobs program.
Instead, they should buy the subs off an existing production line in the UK or the US.
They could then use the 50 billion dollars in savings on a real jobs program or to invest in a domestic industry that they can handle.
The Japanese kill whales and dolphins .
Why do you try to compare 2 so different contract French Where ask for one thing and Australia now wants something
totally different to the yanks the french could also have delivered if Australia had made this demand
But all this was a a crook story from corrupt politiciens on back
it would have been funny if the french turned around sold the weapons to china after the aussies backed out lol
Still scrapping a deal and causing a breach of trust with France is unfair.
Poor little France. Australia should have continued to subsidise their whole submarine building industry.
That's a big mistake for Australia to be UK an US's slave
Not problem France tehnologie , beacouse Australia looking only diesel submarine .If Australia asked nuclear power submarine french will supply nuclear . But pressure from England and America you must buy my . Different story
Send our Australian friends over to the UK to see how we build them for Australia using British labour with Australian apprentices/engineers to then build their own next time,meanwhile we lend them an astute class to practice with and patrol Australia.
The astute will be too old buy the time Australia patrols them and builds them... australia would be ready to build subs starting 2030 why build an astute than when the Uk build the first one around 2000. The astute replacement would be better for Australia , Australia can build the second one after the Uk does the first and fixes all the problems first
It should be mention the 90 billion is Australian dollars not US dollars. The Virginian class is about to receive a upgrade making them longer and heavier to about 10,000 tons. I wonder if the Australians will get the upgraded boats if they receive the Virginian class boats?
Well China is Happy 😁
Life time of us UK whales is 25
No refueling requirement
That of French is after 10 yrs means 2 time charge up requirement .But that's not even bad
I read somewhere that Russian Borei Class are the best in the world.
During Cold War Akula 1 were at par with Los-Angeles Class Subs, Akula 2 at par with Sea Wolf class Subs. Virginia class didn’t have a competition but that changed when Russian introduced Borei Class Subs.
Besides Russian Boats are quieter and can handle greater depths and manage Artic Tundra and ICE due to their Double Hull design.
I may be wrong on Borei as I think it is an SSBN not an SSN.
I believe Swedish subs are equally good!
Thats the nuclear submarine range. Australians were buying the diesel-electric shortfin submarines from France
@Kitty Cat Chinese submarines are junk in front of USA, UK, French technology. Chinese knows how to copy paste that too with very bad quality 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Kitty Cat Chinese submarines are srilankan toilet sink.
Australia will not have submarines at all ! Neither the USA nor Great Britain are in a position to supply them with these "nuclear" submarines. And now after the betrayal of the contract with France, good luck finding another alternative! Chinese submarines perhaps?
Australia did not want to have nuclear-powered submarines and that is a clear decision of Australia to build conventional submarines in the first place ... Now, they are more than happy to go for nuclear submarines and the selling pitch is that these are only nuclear-powered subs but you whats a see, next step will be, "we should have nuclear warheads on our boats, might as well. The million-dollar question is, how much is it going to cost the Australian taxpayers. I can certainly see the reasoning why France has been rather furious from all this as you don't do that to allies whether they are French, Germans, or English for that matter. (Let's hope we don't cheap away on our sovereignty as that's what makes us Australians.
Austalia absiolutely should have nuclear weapons - a massive continent to defend with a small piopulation and massive nuclaer armed neighbours. We're mad no having nukes, especially given we supported all the Brit testing anyway - so we've already undertaken teh health and environmental hit.
My Mum was a kid when the nuke tests were going off in the north of my state - she's having her second cancer in about 30 years treated at the moment.
We've paid the price for them, we may as well have them. Nuclear power as well.
@@1337flite then why shouldn't Brasil get the nukes too ? Or Argentina, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the Congo democratic Republic or Algeria ? More or less all in the same situation as what you described. And some with even more population to protect than yours and more threatening neighbours with nuclear capabilities...
You will only get subs in 20 to 40 years time , and that will not stop China (if still around) and would USA be prepared to a "nuc" war ?lolo
The world’s best deep diver is the whale, diving to 3,000 meters. The best submarines dive to less than 1,000 meter.
400m and they are done.
Really?
Project 210, Project 10831 or AS-31 (Russian: АС-31), nicknamed Losharik (Russian: Лошарик, IPA: [lɐˈʂarʲɪk]), is a Russian deep-diving nuclear powered submarine.
...2,000-2,500 metres that was in 2012, their new ones go even deeper. One point you missed is that a whale has to come up to breathe every 60 minutes, a nuke sub can stay down there as long as it's food supplies last. That means months to years.
Besides, whales can only dive 1000 to 2000 max. Check your facts first.
@@RoRke21 you must be talking about American ones.
We need to start arming whales then
@@galupas ocean servey vessel goes down to 10000 meters. I was refering to SSNs, SSBNs and SSKs
Less ominous music and a narration from an informed voice would improve you videos.
Like India with Russia, Australia can lease nuclear subs from both US & UK before deciding which technology is better for them.
If someone has the best submarine in the world is is because they don’t broadcast having it ….!
Suggestion for France: push for a submarine deal with India instead. They already have Scorpenes/Kalvaris in service there, so why not expand from there.
Yes, will make 6 nuke subs, under project 75 alpha
I agree. India and maybe even Japan
@@kiliandervaux6675 Unlikely. Japan is gonna stick to their own submarine tech. Partly due to their political limits at the moment.
@@arindamhalder5023 Additional Kalvaris?
@@blackpowderuser373 kalveri is diesel electric, i was talking about nuclear powered subs
Nooo. France is angry. We are all quaking in our boots.
Nice soundtrack! :)
I guess crux forgot to mention Russia cause they have world largest akula class submarines bigger than Ohio class also they were nuclear powered
Being the largest Submarine doesn't make it the best. It is easier to detect larger objects. Basic common sense. They are also the largest country in the world but USA is still more powerful than them.
Then Why West are afraid of Russia?.... Never Say This & That If You Don't Know Anything About Russia's Power. Even Nato, France, Australia, Japan, Usa Are Afraid Of Russia. I Think U Know What I M Saying... Did U Use Russians Submarines Before???... I Think "No"... So Never Pretend To Know Everything About Russian's Submarines... Coz They Knew Even Better Than Anyone Else... All Assets Used By Russians Are Classified. I Think U Knew Something Only But Not Much... But , The One Who Made The Asset Is The One Who Knew Everything About The Asset... Keep It Mind. .. Russia Don't Care About This Kind Of Stuff Coz They Can Show Who They Are & What They Are To Any Countries If U Cross Their Boundary. They Are Not Like Us Like India. They Are Genious... Bro.... They Made Their Assets With Their Own People. But Usa Can't... Many Indian's Are There As A Scientists To Help Americans. So Think Who Is Better????...Who Knows If Russia Has Better Than That???... What If They Keep As Secret????.... No One Knows....For Example : Who Defeated Hitler Without The Help Of Any Other Countries???... That Is Russia... Never Forget.... Usa Can't Defeat Those Things...
Crux is not an authoritative body in comparing subs or any other secretive weaponry. They rely heavily on info from western mass media. So it is understandable if their narratives are unfairly skewed towards the west.
@@bonnyningthouja5440 Why are you saying west is afraid of Russia?
@@bonnyningthouja5440 lol indians are not always involved on everything that america does...defeated hitler??? Russia almost fell to the germans..without the allied power russia is doomed..do you have any idea who supplied the russians?? 🤣😂🤣😂 Go back to studying history bro..naturally fighting on 2 fronts would be really hard..Russians can't win on their own during world war 2 and That's a fact! Russians doesn't possess the technology the germans had way back then
Given that there's no spare capacity in the US or UK to provide the RAN with new-build submarines in the near future, we might see either Virginia or Astute -class boats operating from Australia, with a gradually increasing proportion of RAN personnel aboard to gain the necessary experience. At the same time, Australia's SSN support infrastructure can be developed and proven. Which ever way this goes, it's going to take a long time before the RAN has its own fleet.
Beautiful technology
No nuclear sub is quieter than a diesel electric sub.
I saw a picture of the dock hall in Barrow-in-Furness, UK with 3 astute class all under construction together. Should be able to help the Aussies out.
Still three Astutes to complete for the RN and the Dreadnought SSBNs are coming on line too, so there'd need to be quite an increase in skilled manpower to build several extra hulls too.
All of t he subs should be built in Adelaide Australia. This must be a complete technology and construction transfer to Australia and should not be seen as a jobs for uk or us personnel. The only thing that should be built o/seas is the nuclear power module.
The astutes are obsolete...not what the Australians want or will get!
@@iangrantham8300 Astutes are obsolete? The most advanced hunter/killer on Earth? Source please.
@@iangrantham8300 Absurd. The Astutes are among the most capable SSNs in service anywhere.
America ,British, French who has the best submarine
Me: Russians
You must be worlds top weapons expert.... 😁
Diesel driven crap from Russia and France.....no thanks I'd go with Virginia class and Astute class with nuclear motors any day.
@@jokerswild5485 pretty sure the experts would tell you that right now the most advanced submarines in the world are the british astute class ones
@@h4rdi7g3 no expert can tell you that, because no expert has access to every country classified, highly sensitive, information like SSN specifications.
Kursk
They could buy both. From France diesel Baraccuda, and from US nuclear
Australia should have chosen British submarines not france submarines at first. haha
3 Russian subs couldn't detect the British Astute class when it was off in the eastern Mediterranean 3 years ago, and it slipped right past them.
Russians build noisy subs and its well documented. That is part of the reason they have not limited their ICBM capability to their subs, like certain countries, and still use silos and mobile launchers. They are aware of the limitations of their designs and won’t put all their eggs in one basket
3 years algo a british Astute sub could not lunch cruise missiles against damascu sirían city because a russian diesel powered sub was chasing them in the mediterránean sea
@@elcormoran1
Can I see proof of that encounter please.
@@adamdriver1016 can show me proof of british sub launching Cruise missiles against Sirian people
@@elcormoran1 lol! You got them there with their "highly likely" arguments!
I think it's USA right now.
Let's wait and see what India + France together can do. France said they would build the world's best submarine, now only time will decide how strong their words are.
France has built it : it's called the Suffren, check it out. Now the question is will India buy a fleet of those ?
I have to answer to all the comments writing the best nuclear subs are Russian, US, Uk , Indian, French, Swedish... .
You are all wrong!!! They are Swiss!
Whatever, this deal open the door to countries producing nuclear subs to sell some to countries having not this capability.
More, this gives a bit more argues to French to build a European military force, independent from USA, with a budget, with a committee to decide about the strategic ties with other countries....
I am not sure all of these are good news for AUKUS, but rather for China
3:31 - no critical edge is offered by this deal in countering China. China has, and is still building more modern conventional boats than modern nuclear attack subs. That;’s because the likely contested waters are in the littoral - where conventional boats have a stealth advantage. Australia - via the now scrapped future (conventional) Sea 1000 program could have provided complimentary submarining capability in the southern zone as Japan does in the Northern zone (Sea of japan and Yellow Sea). Now there will be a capability gap. AUKUS has effectively cut off its right hand with its left. Daft.
They are maximising ability to get to a specific geographical area quickly from central sth pacific to coast of Taiwan to Singapore or Arabian sea. That is a huge tactical advantage.
@@boogle785 To what end? Apparently the Americans want the Australians in the AUKUS pact to tie up the southern entries to the South China Sea. Ie. adjacent to some strategically placed forward operating bases at Manus Island and Christmas Island. It has not been spelt out why a short fin barracuda stacked with Li-ion batteries and Naval Groups next generation AIP (which runs off the same diesel fuel as the generator) lacks the tempo to cover the said distances. The new technologies for conventional subs significantly close the gap in terms of practical range and speed with SSNs, whilst maintaining their clear stealth advantages over SSNs. FFS, the german type 214 doesnt have to even snort for 3 weeks. Neither would the short fin barracuda if it had Naval groups new AIP fuel cell system and Li-ion batteries.
got nothing to do with it, china is building 25% nuke subs instead of 50% only because they cant keep the same numbers 70 plus if they dont... even russia sub fleet is over rated when you only count the number of high tech subs that work
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 AIP is terrble technology and not needed for Australia... Aus even tested it on the collins and it decreased performance , took up space , increased cost for no benefit.... the Aus sub can patrol for 23 hours with just a 1 hour recharge who cares about AIP when you have such a small recharge time needed and such a long patrol.... and LITHIUM batteries were never an option because of fires they were not picked
@@nic7048 AIP has come a long way in recent times. Australia didnt ‘test’ AIP on the collins, it was designed FOR the Sterling AIP system but not build WITH it. The snort times for Collins class subs is a lot less than 1 hour and the thought has always been it’s unnecessary. However, now ‘the thought’ is that even small discretion times are risky going into the future. The Singaporean 218 SG boats now coming into service boast an underwater endurance between snorts or up to 45 days. They use both Li-ion batteries (and non cascading fire proof li-ion batteries in subs is apparently a thing now, contra 2015 when the etch was initially written off as impractical) and a fuel cell based AIP. Similar technology is being embraced by the Italians and the German navies. Japan on the other hand is taking out the Sterling systems and simply packing in more Li-ion batteries.
France wanted to sell nuclear(!) submarines to Australia ten years ago, but the USA demanded, that they have to be Diesel. The redevelopment took 10 years (and a huge investment). And now USA are selling nuclear(!) submarines to Australia, which had single-sided canceled the order. I would also be angry!
And your proof of what you are saying is what ??????????????????????
No, the Australian public didn't want nuclear power because Fukushima had just happened.
@@Minchya It is absolutely true, Australia would already have delivered its first nuclear submarine if it had that choice.
@@maeldruillennec3562 Unfortunately Nuclear has been a dirty word in Australia for many years assisted by the Greens and Labor. This decision is braver than people realise.
Absolute RUBBISH!
Well everything is all for the money, france would not be like this if its free right?
Yes, correct so do US and UK would not risk their relationship with France too if its free
In their original tender they specified non nuclear ,if they had wanted nuclear then France and others will have offered nuclear subs. The fact is that they do not know and do not have much in Australia and they relied on USA because they feel safer (for the time been).
USA don't want us to have nuke boats, but rise of China makes it easier on USA that Australia have them
Astute class from Britian are very good
The French Barracuda class submarine is originally a nuclear-powered vessel. Australia has uranium but doesn't have a nuclear industry like France, England, and the US. To operate a nuclear-powered submarine you need to have access to a nuclear power source. For that reason, the Australian government asked France to modify the submarines and fit them with diesel engines.
If Australia wanted a better range they could have asked France to build the submarine with nuclear engines. The reason for the Australian government to cancel the french deal and have the subs built by the US is purely strategic. Getting closer to the US and therefore being protected by them is vital especially if China is becoming increasingly ambitious in the pacific region.
France after years oand a fortune spent had done absolutely nothing with respect to beginning construction
I do not think I agree here.
The french subs use low grade uranium, the same kind which is used in civilian areas, such as in the medical field, and every modern nations in the world do already manage this material and its waste products.
No comment about the price? I read that the US submarine is 3.5 times more expensive than the French one
It won't be an American one it'll be British. Astute production is now finishing up so that leaves many engineers available to train their Australian counterparts that and the lower crew requirements means more than likely astute will form the basis of the Australian sub.
There is a massive tech difference going from diesel to nuclear, hence the price.
@@lincolnshirepoacher894 given that the French design was originally a nuclear one, refitted for diesel because of the Aussie requested it, and that this was denounced as the main cause for over-costs, it should mean that the French nuclear design was even cheaper that the actual Attack class program. So how do you explain your assertion now ?
Watching this as a Frenchman in 2024 when it has become obvious that Oz won’t get its subs before who knows when, less than initially forecast, and with a price increase that would make a banker cry, knowing that the critics made then on the French deal were unsubstantiated at best.
Er….we told you so?
4:14 - China is building more conventional subs than nuclear ones. because they work better in littoral waters. nuclear plus conventional is the way of the future, and a shift away from conventional by Australia actually opens up a capability gap for AUKUS in the future. Moreover - many of the disadvantages of conventional powered subs are reduced or even removed once fuel cell technology becomes widespread. Check out the Soryu subs for example. Fuel cell technology wears part of the program that Australia just scrapped. madness.
Look at a map....look at the respective size and make up of respective navies and their build rates etc...china has a relatively small coastline and a huge navy in which SSKs in large numbers offer great defence. Australia is a huge landmass facing three great oceans with a tiny navy and defence force. THINK!!!!
there not bulding them for that there doing it because there cheaper.... when you have a navy of 300,000 personel you dont need quality you need to give them all equipment.... look at the Australian air force its 75% 5th gen soon and 25% 4.5. Now compare that with china air force that is 80 percent 3rd gen to 4th gen aircraft see the difference in quality and equipment
any capability gap can be filled by Taiwan and Japan that will stick to diesel subs as it suits them fine
fuel cell tech will never fix anything - nuke subs have 3 times the horsepower and double the speed underwater that makes a huge difference plus far more living space.... you cant transit 20,000km in a small 2000 tonne fuel cell sub at 9km hour on endless batteries as your crew will go insane and you will run out of food anyway.
Soryu had less then half the range of the collins and your saying its a bad idea not to pick it, buying that low range sub is terrible for Australia , it suits Japan its close to everything
France complaining because someone pulled out of a deal when they had done work on it? That's novel
French just whine about everything , even the Germans are getting sick of them now!!
@@glastonbury4304 hence, why all candidates for German elections (except for the Green Party) went to Élysée palace before Election Day?
@@canistanbuldan ..love the German Green Party, seem to be the only Green Party that speak sense...strong party 👍
As always India 🇮🇳 will also be a leading player in few years
Jai hind 🇮🇳
Can we appreciate they soundtrack that they use like bro these are 🔥🔥
Australia french deal did not have nuclear option,so when us offered it the scraped france deal
The French must be wondering why Australia didn’t just order already developed French nuclear subs in the first place.
Not just the French. I'm Australian and wondering the exact same thing. Sure geo politics have changed, so why didn't the Australian government go back to French government and say they wanted nuclear instead!?!
@@wayneobrien3332 I only speculate that maybe the British and American subs always were a first choice but not allowed previously. Maybe there was a change in policy by America and Britain when they could see what a disaster the French Sub was and would prefer Australia to be more helpful and sooner in future operations.
Clearly something needs to go back the other way from AU to US. That will likely be strategic position (closer to China and Indonesia). Also more AU bases that are better equipped for US subs. Lastly, AU will likely be the first to take one for the team when China does become more open about its territorial expansion. Its a relationship that is more than just selling some submarines.
@@BrettSurenne yes that makes sense.
Stated reason is that French reactors are of the older design that need midlife refuelling, which Australia does not have the nuclear infrastructure to do. US and latest UK reactors go the whole life on one set of fuel rods.
France could have built nuclear powered submarine for Australia, but back in 2016 Australian government did not want to precisely because it's nuclear powered
It's like organizing compétition call for gasoline cars then say '' no it's shit... american can make electric cars their cars are better ''
The question, who made the first submarine in the world???. I will let you know if you respond to the question
The australia betrayal was the wrong decision on every level. If the Australians were unhappy with the original deal, they could have upgraded the deal to air-independent submarines for submerged endurance. Air-independent submarines can stay submerged for weeks at a time, making them very similar to nuclear powered submarines. That upgrade would give them the underwater endurance that they seem now to want, and there would be no question of any nuclear technology being spread, and you would maintain the deal with France.
I have
Do u want it ??
If french is not willing to transfer tech to India on nuclear Sub India should immediately initiate deal for design development & production of 5 new 10 Ton (30 years once refueling)with Russia.
Instead of Sulkin FRANCE should counter USUK deal...to attaract Ozzies Dollar
The fact that the fuel in us and uk submarines last a « lifetime » is actually not an advantage but a disadvantage.First it raises some issue about the non-proliferation, since it is highly enriched military grade uranium and Australia doesn’t have nuclear weapons.Second, what is a « lifetime »?25 years, 30 years?Who in their right mind can seriously believe those boats will be retired in that timeframe?If you look at history, most subs soldier on for longer simply because building them is difficult and expensive.Especially for Australia.What will happen then?Even if the reactors of the french submarine need to be refuelled every 10 years, this would likely have be handled easily by Australia with some technical help, since it is low grade, regular uranium used in electric powerplant.
They're setting up the full nuclear submarine maintenance infrastructure up to look after the submarines. Australia is going to being given the full nuclear technology from the US & the UK. Facts are the UK sees Australia as it number 1 allie, Australia's number 1 allie is the UK. It's not widely known but if there's a nuclear attack on the UK & everything is wiped out. All Naval assets that aren't effected hand themselves over to the Australian Navy to Serve with them under the Australian Naval command. Australia will be still the UK' S number 1 allie long after the submarines are retired off regardless of how things turn out. You can't change absolute fact. Australia will be the next nuclear armed country whether we get to know about it or not. That is just my opinion about the nuclear armed but if you've got the hi tech nuclear military grade know how, along with nuclear powered subs. These subs will be armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles like all nuke subs are. So effectively the Australian Navy will be a nuclear armed Navy. Not a great idea if you ask me but we've been lead by psychopaths for centuries, what else can we expect from these idiots.
@@DavyRo Diesel powered subs can still fire nuclear missiles, the propulsion system is irrelevant, the nuclear missile firing trucks are not nuclear powered.
@@DavyRo You said: " Facts are the UK sees Australia as it number 1 allie, Australia's number 1 allie is the UK. "
Actually, the UK sees America as its number one ally. And Australia also sees America as its number one ally.
The UK used to be Australia's number one ally -- but they felt abandoned by the UK in WW2. Also, the UK stopped being a Superpower.
America just brings much more to the table.
@@DavyRo You said: "These subs will be armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles like all nuke subs are."
That too is wrong. The Astute class and the Virginia class subs are both nuclear-powered. But neither of them are armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles.
As @Joe perrone pointed out, how a sub is powered and whether or not it is armed with nuclear weapons have nothing to do with each other.
Lol are you dumb or something? The fuel can be replaced after 25 or 30 years. America did that with their nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Then the submarine can remain in service for another 25 or 30 years.
3:03 I thought the french deal was conventionally powered?? Why does this slide say “reactors” the. 😰
Anyway, the reason why FR is brooding is because AU didn’t ask. They could have provided them with French made subs too but instead unilaterally junked the conventionally powered sub deal for a nuclear powered one from either UK or US. So I can understand why FR is frothing at its mouth now. 😢 i would too if I were FR.
Philippines 🇵🇭 🙋🏻♂️ can be a willing recipient of these french subs if the price is right though 😅
The french Barracudas are indeed nuclear propelled. But Australia asked Naval Group to develop a diesel variant. Saying Australia scrapped the contract because they wanted nuclear subs is a nonsense.
The French ssn are far inferior compared with the US and UK boats...when Australia decided on nuclear-powered over conventional, it was a simple decision.
@@julienboyer It was simply easier for Australia to go with boats that are fueled for their service life.
@@hermes6910 Yeah! It's probably best you ignore me and keep working on those English vocabulary skills.
Can i speak French did you say?...NO...there's no reason to learn an irrelevant language. Bye bye!
@@hermes6910 allo allo...i'm not English. Bye!
This dude is giving me World War 3 vibes with the music
@Yesumani Tadigoppula ok chill i just watched the video till 4:12 but great music
I hope the Australians have deep pockets. Do they realise a Nuclear sub costs over £100,000 /day to keep alongside in harbour? Can you imagine the overrun costs of a project managed by the UK/US 😂
The UK submarine's depth is up to 500m. the French and Germans are in the 300'sm. The French nuclear reactor needs refueling every 7 years, Whereas the UK and US do not need it. The life of the engines in this video is 25 years. But in the naval video, it is 35 years and does not need any refueling.
The French nuclear reactor is more advanced than the US one. he may needs refueling every 8 years but it can run on civilian uranium, with a much lower enrichment than weapon grade uranium.
@@leonidasthermopylae3378 mate the US and U.K. subs don’t need nuclear grade uranium….
UK sub needs 98 crew vs French Barracuda needs 60 crew… High Tech 🇫🇷 Sub. With same crew , UK can operate 2 subs and France 3.
French subs need refueling every 10 years, while the British subs need 20 years…..the US subs will need refueling after 35 years. anyway the Brits use American sub technology.
Refuelling is an argument for fan boy , Crew is an argument for managers . USA , by spending 1 trillion for flying Penguin Fail35 does not even know what Management means!!
The Astute isn’t “slightly faster”🙄 it’s 10 knots faster than the Virginia class subs, which have a top speed of 25 knots. And are 60% of the cost.
Aye, people seem to be sleeping on the capabilities of the Royal Navy’s hunter-killers. Absolutely lethal and the deadliest boat afloat.
Top speeds are classified. Don’t believe everything you read……
Smaller crew also.
Astute is just a better boat than the US or French
As long as the building process hasn’t begun & money hasn’t changed hands, why’s France whining about that when there’re others countries they can sell their diesel-electric subs to?
These are not « diesel-electric » subs, they are nuclear subs retrofitted at the request of the Australian government to be diesel-electric powered. An expensive and lengthy process since these two types of propulsion’s do not fit in the same space into a sub.
@@manuelatreide that’s exactly what I was saying.
There's an old joke about Canada, that they could have had American technology, British Culture, and French cuisine, and instead wound up with American culture, British cuisine, and French technology. I don't know how true that actually is, and I know this is about Australia, but it does make a statement about French technology--many of you immediately laughed when you read that. I think after France jacked up the price for DIESEL/ELECTRIC and demanded to make the subs in France instead of Australia, Australia decided it wasn't worth it for French technology. I'm sure it's much better than say--Chinese technology (which is mostly copied), but of the three--American, British or French--which would you rather have?
america and UK have technology they didn t copy off france and germany?!!
So USA and UK submarine required 3 decades of refueling while France only one decade of refueling who is best
no war lasts for a decade , let alone 3 decades
@@datascientist-ce9jt submarine are use for naval surveillance and patrolling not only in wars
i guess France submarines are cheap. that's why australia made the deal
the Limey subs will need 20 years refueling. the Yank subs will need more than 35 years for refueling.
@@Abhi_gyan_1 diseal submarine is obviously cheap. But France has nuclear power submarine
At the original signing the price was 25 billion, than the French up it to 60 billion then again to 90 billion. I live in South Australia and the agreement was also that the subs be BUILT HERE, the French agreed to that THEN CHANGED THE CONTRACT AGAIN to have the subs being built in France, Australia to do the fitting out. This totally AGAINST the original contract. France can go suck its own thumbs and whatever else it wishes. France never keeps to its agreed contracts so TOUGH.
Hogwash They did not change The contract. Provide proof and links.
That list of reasons makes a good argument to scrap the deal. The one with price alone would have me fuming. Imagine picking up an item on a store shelf for $25, while walking to the cashier you hear the announcement that it is now $60, and when you make it to the cashier, it is $90, plus it is a foreign made item. :)
Unoobi
Right because you pick up nuclear submarines over The shelf like a roll of toilet paper.
Go back to play with your marbles.
@@jungbolosse3034 You completely missed the point of my analogy. OBVIOUSLY I can only use a store shelf product when talking about myself being mad about a price increase, but Australia being a country probably felt much the same with those price increases as I would in the store with the product.
If the Aussies constantly ordered changes to the sub while it's being designed, it requires more money to be given because that's a lot of intense work hours. The Aussies themselves agreed to the changes France gave them to keep it as neat as it can be. If constant changes cause setbacks for time. Making the sub in their own yards requires less time so they stay closer to schedule...
diesel-electric are the best subs for australia. the quietest submarine in the the ocean is a diesel-electric boat running on battery power and electric motors.
range limited but neither are our immediate threats.
the defence of australia should be the priority, not the supporting of american military interests abroad. the us has been a great friend but even friends can disagree or take another path, might still be in the same direction. Point being, nuclear submarines are huge financial mistake and it's needs to be realised, for the good of the country.
Clickbait. No info given about relative merits of the various submarines..