Australia acting as if AUKUS is a 100% go ahead as long as Australia government and and ship builders and RAN can meet the demands needed to make it happen. The real threat is it hasn't been approved by congress yet to allow the technology transfer to make AUKUS happen. So far several issues has mounted on congress to not approve the technology such as list below 1. Admirals claimed the US won't be able to provide Virginia class submarines due to falling short for their own. 2. Military strategists experts within the US claim Australia not fit to meet the needs for accidents if was to accur. 3. Pressure is mounted on congress from other countries claiming to ban US submarines from allowing to use their ports due to AUKUS pact in protests. This will be a problem for US to maintain strength in the indo pacific and through Asia. This has arisen concern with many US senators in backlash for Australia to have technology to be able to build the submarines. AUKUS is a gamble. And Australia to be able to build submarines or even have gap Virginia class submarines is nothing more than a wishful dream road. It hasn't been guaranteed despite the challenges Australia will face on its own to make it happen. The US president can approve the submarines. But it cannot go ahead without congress approval in technology transfer. That's the reality Australia is facing
I was a submariner on the Oberon boats of the 1980’s. When it came to exercises we had to send up flare to left the surface ship know exactly where we were. During RIMPAC 1984, Australia’s two submarines were part of a fleet against the U.S. our submarines were the only vessels from our to survive the games. Oxley in fact sailed into Pearl Harbour flying the skull and crossbones.
yeah submarines do seem to win excersizes from what ive seen. it makes me worried for the royal navy which by reputation has great asw warfare pedegree but can you reliably defend your carriers from subs?
Have you ever visited the Oberon class submarine in Fremantle? There's one on display at the WA Maritime Museum. I did a tour with a submariner. I imagine you'll enjoy it getting to see your old workplace again.
I listened to a podcast where they talked about how the Aussie Oberons were upgraded with an extremely advanced fire control system for Sub Harpoon, and also getting data link information back (telecom back from ADCAP) and that the USN was quite impressed with what the RAN did with their Oberons (which, like Collins, were pretty large for diesel boats, at least compared to say a 209)
@@tdb7992 In reality they were ghastly places to work. The whole thing STINKS of diesel and the submariners and most of the surfaces in the boat have a sheen of diesel on them You could always spot a submariner when they first got back by their greasy outlook. lol
I'd been waiting for someone to do a long-form video just like this. Super well done. Really hammers home the slam dunk advantage of nuclear powered subs over conventional and shows how, given the distances between Australia and the places where its sub forces would need to be employed, nuclear was Australia's only sensible option. I'm also grateful that hypohysterical pointed out the host of limitations imposed on the US carrier in the war game in which the Swedish sub, the Gotland, "sunk" the carrier. I'd heard the tale over and over again but not until now had I heard about all of the limitations imposed on the carrier, limitations that made the war game unrealistic and caused everyone who heard the tale to believe that US carriers are more vulnerable to conventional subs than they are.
There are good arguments against nukes. Nukes are noisier and constantly release easily tracked waste heat from their reactors... these drawbacks are mitigated by keeping to cold deep seas. Unfortunately the seas between Australia and China are mostly warm and shallow, ESPECIALLY the naval choke points we'd need to protect Australia or even blockade China if that's your bag. The Japanese certainly realise this, and the Russians too. Even China itself... they have been building diesels new for good reason even though they've easily got the manufacturing to go all nuke. The Americans have even been thinking about bringing back diesel subs because of their advantages in litoral waters. It's just not the inherent limitations of nuke technology either. Going nuke makes Australia completely reliant on the US. Former Australian Intelligence Officer and military academic Clinton Fernandez wrote a whole book on this. Australia is surrendering the idea of being an independant middle power in favour of needlessly our sovereignty... becoming a sub-imperial power just as US power wanes. Attached to a declining power just as we were in the old days before WWII with Britain. The US MIC has been trying to encourage this thinking in Australia for years... it's sad the Labor government signed on to this.
Agreed. In a real war a diesel boat will have to be lucky beyond belief. Or the carrier is given specific orders to perform its mission in such a way that it loses its most important attribute.
In a real war, subs do not attack carriers. They attack logistical lines. Like the replenishment fleet of the enemy, or merchant ships with food/fuel/materials. Why use a sub to take down a carrier, when you can use missiles, mines, airplanes etc? As skewed as the exercise was, it had ONE goal. To train the fleet in finding the sub. Which they never did. For weeks. The WHOLE fleet were unable to do it. And it was successful. The US changed their ASW protocols to better be able to find AIP subs, including a more clear emphasise on helicopters with dipping sonars. No, the reality is that if a war between China and Taiwan broke out, the most effective way to combat China is to block all sea lanes to and from it. This can be done with great effect by conventional, silent subs. To snorkel every 3 weeks close to Sumatra, and still basically block all oil delivery to China, is vastly different than "prowling the ocean like a great white shark". It is cool and all, but not strictly necessary in a REAL conflict.
About aukus I think people are getting hung up on the subs (a big deal for sure) but ignoring the broader meaning of this pact. I foresee australia becoming the central hub for uk and usa military projection in the region. Something they were supposedly already discussing with France prior to aukus. I foresee combined military production, research and development between the 3 nations supporting each other in every aspect of defence in the aisian region. Research, tech, army, navy and airforce
Nailed it. President Biden probably said more than he was meant when he did that interview and said how AUKUS "checkmates China", due to rotation of one RN Astute and four Virginia USN (which will be based there at Fleet Base West and will probably start having mixed crews and eventually be the Virginias the RAN gets, working up to fully crewing them, before SSN-AUKUS enters service) It's about USN and RAN nuclear subs that could carry out blockade of the Straits of Malacca and choke off Chinese imports in any conflict
I never realised that Ssn are china's bane in a actual conflict, they have a lot of shipping and as large as their surface navy may be, ww2 proved that you cant just simply escort all the naval traffic. Really cool and informative video
Yes, and their lack of capability in the field is also shown by their inability to construct nuc boats of their own that are less than decades/generations behind- I would think that this would also be evidence of a likely inability to successfully counter modern SSNs, due to a lack of understanding of submarine acoustics, etc, if only for lack of practical experience... Though, I recall recently seeing an article (which I didn't read) that had a headline that went something like 'China's newest class of nuclear subs are no longer a complete joke', which, tbh, doesn't really make it seem like they've made a heck of a lot of progress. (spelling/grammar edit)
@@grosey11 I wonder if the practical aspects of such a blockade have been given enough thought... Japan, the ROK, ROC, etc, may have a thing or two to say about it: will every ship be stopped and searched, etc? And the clock is ticking on that one, too, with all of the infrastructure being built towards alternatives- ports and pipelines, etc, that would push the theoretical blockade back to the straight of Hormuz, which would far more problematic, both militarily and geopolitically (not that Malacca would be as easy, strictly militarily, as it us portrayed: for example, China may not have a sub fleet that could counter it, but (whatever massive problems their land forces have), Russia sure does...).
@@bholdr----0 ...You do realise detection and counterdetection are basically entirely separate things, right? This is excluding the fact the PLAN operates conventional subs that are already extremely quiet, which throws a wrench in the works of the whole "They don't know anything about submarines." After all, the distinction between nukes and conventionals acoustics-wise is mostly in the reactor, rather than some fundamental difference in quieting philosophy.
Ugh... of course. That us why I qualified my comment. Read it again. (See: 'a likely', and, 'if only', etc... its frustrating when people- not necessarily you (another qualification) seem to try to score points or whatever when someone (even marginally) disagrees while trying to contribute to the conversation)... NUANCE! (Also, 'entirely separate things'... jeez... do you think, for example, that the US doesn't learn from their own mistakes, successes, technology, etc, etc? I would understand if you thought that they were obverse, etc, but, 'completely'? Ugh.) Edit- pls excuse my tone, it isn't personal, I'm just tired of the narrowness of oblivation superseding nuance and conversation, it's not just you.)
Keep up the great work being the best youtuber out there! (BTW make a Patreon or the UA-cam member thing so you can get the coin you deserve from making these amazing videos!)
Glad to see that Aussie/US/UK foreign policy is continuing in the right direction! AUKUS seems to be a bold move and I sincerely hope that our current and future leaders can maintain this level of cooperation
The secret to maintaining commitment (more important than cooperation) is tying up financial investment years in advance. The cooperation aspect is ensured by the deeply embedded Five Eyes. There is an operational need for a smaller super silent type of conventional submarine. For use in places where the large nuclear boats cannot safely go. FYI. The COVID origin is now confirmed to be a leak from a PLA lab in Wuhan.
I remember watching a interview on Australian edition of 60 minutes with Mel Gibson in 1987 warning us about western countries helping the rise of China. Nearly all his predictions came true.
Yes the west was mesmerised by the size of the potential chinese market and were played like real suckers by the chinese. When business is driving foreign policy this is the sort of management of national security you get. Even the US which gives high priority to national security matters got screwed by them. This deception by the chinese continues as they talk peaceful rise while building a huge navy at record speed while giving no hint as to their intentions. At least now a few people are starting to wake up to the threat. Let’s hope it is not too late.
the west also benefitted greatly from the trade and it lifted 700 million people out of poverty and china could have still traded with countries outside the west and then only those countries would've gotten the benefits
Thanks for another exceptional and contemporary video. I'm 49 this year, and it's a little boggling that the last of class of the AUKUS submarines will be delivered as I die of old age. If I'm fortunate.
It's ridiculous. I swear I heard like a decade ago that we would be building our own subs here in SA, then later we gave the contract to France or something? Now here we are a decade later and a billion dollars in the hole, back to the original plan. Our government is so shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they're built too late.
Think of it as Australia getting the tools to defend from Imperial Japan years before the later actually launched its Pacific conquest campaign in WWII;
Haha, it actually like Australia getting capability against Imperial Japan only in the late 1960s, long after the war has finished. You 'll get the submarines in the 2050s by which time the concept of a big nuclear submarine will be obsolete and the competition between the US and China has already been resolved. It's just a scheme to rob you of half a trillion dollars you could have used for your own development. Remember, the US has no friends, you are a potential competitor too., the one that is especially dangerous because you are an isolated continent rich in resources.
When it come's to Naval asset's our military political / planning has such a bad record it border's on treasonous and now that they are going woke I don't hold much hope for the future , even now number's in the labor party = our government are building to prevent the nuclear sub initiative all from moving forward at all .
I wouldn't think of it like that at all. It may be way too late by the time we get them. If we do get them in time, they will be a huge asset for deterrence.
At the current pace of the AUKUS program, versus Xi's often stated intent to get Taiwan back by 2026 (which would almost certainly ignite a war), this would be more like Australia getting all the tools to defend from Japan in the 1950s, some ten years after the war with Japan had already started and finished.
14:10 I would say 'wil be' instead 'is' the most advanced non USN carrier. Charles de Gaul is actually nuclear powered, operates Rafale M instead of J-15 and also has 2 CATOBARs and they both operate around 40 fighters and it also has AEWA Hawkeyes. And Charles de Gaulle is actually fully operational!
There's also the two 65,000 ton QE class carriers of the Royal Navy which aren't as big as Fujian, but I wouldn't bet on them being inferior. The F-35Bs they carry are definitely going to be superior to their Chinese counterparts.
@@trolleriffic yep good point, they're probably a toss up depending on the situation. Fujian probably better when you need suffiently large aripower to wage a large air to ground campaign and QE probably better at an outer air battle with F-35Bs
Sadly people tend to have short collective memories. China tipped their hand on what their preferred revisions to the rules based order would look like in their trade feud with Australia. Potential vassal states should take note , as an American I feel that Australia has an important lesson to teach the world on this issue lest we “ sell the rope they plan to hang us with “ .
@@hrnfw4818 Too late. Australian iron ore and metallurgical grade coal is used to build China's Naval fleet. Funny how iron ore was not one of the products banned by China.
Its the speed and range that really sets these nuke boats apart from any other form of sub. Imagine a boat that can approach its targets using world class sensors for guidance, at night, and then shower it with heavy weight torpedoes and surface attack missiles then exit the area at 30+ knots. Try driving a car at 70kph down a highway and then imagining an 8000 ton vehicle, 600 feet below the ocean's surface doing the same. They really are an ocean predator that no Navy can easily defend against. We are blessed that our behavior towards the United States and the UK over the last century in both peacetime and wartime has elevated our country to the status of most reliable and trusted allies. Our vast country with all its wealth contains a tiny population on a par with the size of some International cities. It must be an enviable target for many who would like to possess it. Without our strategic partners such as the USA and the UK we could not hope to defend it against many nations such as China, Indonesia, India etc. With them inside the AUKUS framework we are unbeatable.
@@alanbstard4Subs wouldn’t be operating there, it’s too heavily monitored. There are other spots along the trade route with deeper water that would be happy hunting grounds.
I worked at the company where the Collins class subs were built, and saw the launch of the last boat - HMAS Rankin in 2001. It's hard to believe it was more than 20 yers ago.
What am awesome podcast mate! Hearing the aussie voice for over 2 hours was quite pleasant. You could split this into 4 parts for bulk views but damn, my Saturday morning has been educational! Cheers
Just as a point of note, while it is true that it is possible for space based systems to spot the snorkel of a submarine, its unlikely, and at least in transit phase not very valuable. My father was Int Corps for 36 years, so worked a lot with satellite based intelligence. Without breaking the Official Secrets Act he informed me that Its great for planning fires on say an airbase, or some other static target, but for moving targets, including ships and fleets, at best its going to give you a general search area, not a pin point location. Other assets will need to be moved into that area for a closer search. People often forget that while satellite surveillance technology is good, it is not yet real time. At least not to my knowledge. A small addendum to an otherwise excellent presentation. Though I have to admit, when I see a hypohystericalhistory video drop I tend to click play before I check the title.... You have yet to disappoint. EDIT: Oh, thermoclines affect most electromagnetic energy as well. Divers wearing dry suits can carry radios for comms, I have been on dives were one of us was a couple of metres below a thermocline, and the other a couple of metres above, not more than maybe 5 - 6 metres apart, but we could not communicate because the radio wave would just bounce off the thermocline. This is really just in there for the sake of people who may not necessarily believe that this happens. It does, admittedly a personal radio for short range comms between divers is not going to have the power of a military grade active sonar but it does not seem to matter in most cases. Its why dipping sonars are so often used. You can drop them below the thermocline.
Radio and sonar work differently you couldn’t receive radio to each other because radio waves wavelength are large and the difference in seawater density at the thermocline caused the incident ray to veer off enough to miss you. Sonar is sound waves and I believe it’s to do with how fast sound travels in water and again the varying density of water in the thermocline and the doppler effect.
You may be correct In 2023 but in 2043? I think everyone is ignoring what a gamechanger spaceX starship is going to be. A rocket that can put 100 tonnes into orbit. Launched several times a week and at a fraction of the cost. I put it to you a constellation of giant satellites will be able to pick up a snorkelling submarine.
That may be true then, but now and into the future with real time imagery analysis that can be crunched by AI on higher and higher resolution photo's I think its more than possible. I mean even commercially you can run photo's through an AI and get it to recognize patterns, let alone what million dollar budgets+ do on military databases.
It also depends on how many you have. If you have enough satellites orbiting to have constant coverage, you can maintain a track while it is physically possible to see the sub from space. I don't know if the CCP has that capability right now and if they could maintain that capability when everyone wants to shoot down enemy satellites, but I would assume they're planning on putting lots of eyes up there as quickly as possible.
I think he covered the narrow swathes of satellite imaging in another video, pointing out that it was not the same as tracking required to direct fire/missiles.
I would really love to see your analysis regarding Japans geopolitical landscape and their defence policy as a response to the changing environment. With a deep dive into their military industrial base and arsenal/equipment/technology.
massive industrial ship building infrastructure 10:18 Type 052D Destroyer 12:05 Type 55 Cruister 112 VLS cells Lianing, Shan Dong Limitation of ski-jump carriers Upcoming Type 04 carrier 17:40 interference in Australia 43:00 Gotland AIP "sank" CVN Ronald Reagan
After watching this, I have to say that the analysis was superb. This is highly informative. It taught me a lot about a topic I don't really know about. I guess I can actually say I do know a fair bit about it after listening to video 1:25:10 . I think we can fairly safely conclude that you are a very bright individual with an extremely impressive work ethic.
SSKs can be an effective replacement to SSNs if your area of operations is a smaller area like the Baltic or Mediterranean-sea but in the open ocean SSNs are the only real option.
@@keibin92 If the South China Sea was next to Australia then SSKs would make a lot more sense. Unfortunately some thoughtless idiot went and put it thousands of km away near China instead! What's that about?
@@trolleriffic Exactly. Also, the AuSSNs will just as likely be operating south of India sinking Chinese merchant shipping and blockading the Strait of Malacca
As an American, I hope Australia will be able to maintain the will and the economy to maintain this increase in capabilities. The deterrence to the next great war can only be achieve if countries significantly increase their readiness so that certain bad actors will not be tempted to make a land/power grab. The last thirty years was all about the end of the Cold War and reaping economic dividends via globalization and the dream that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other. That dream is over. I don't know if any countries had the will to claim that in 2010, China would be a major military threat to the Indo Pacific. All of us were crossing our fingers and toes hoping that will economic prosperity, China will transition to a more open and liberal society. Well, that didn't happen. We now know that China went in the other direction and the winds of war are beginning to stir once again. It feels like the 2020's is a repeat of the 1920's. I never thought I would be such parallel in my lifetime but there it is. I hope that with with increase in military spending throughout the Indo Pacific and else where (Western Europe), the military industrial complexes in these countries will gain more power and influence that they won't become the tails and wag the dogs of war.
I agree with your argument, and I must say that when I did my six years in my Jungle Green Suit, in the end, I was feeling optimistic that we wouldn't be making war anymore. Extremely Silly of me when my Grandfather was a Gunner in the Great War, my Father was a Gunner in the Second World War, I never left Australia so I just practised for the entire time of my enlistment I just can't convince the blokes at the RSL that despite who my friends were and what they did plus the souvenirs they gave me I only left Country for holiday's in the USA. Then my Son joined the NAVY and was a Bridge Officer, so four Generations of military service and I stayed home, but I wish that the Government would fast track the building of factories for ammunition production, possibly start a Bushmaster acquisition program for the full range of their Transports and Weapons system's. Also, with modern materials and engines re-visit the Jindervic, it may be subsonic, but with an update, it would have a range of well over a thousand miles. And the SkySweeper is a cheap and quickly deployable answer to, again with modern materials and equipment very adequate for everything from mortars to jet attack planes, Ukraine has taught us that it is better to have to dispose of old ammunition than not have enough. I watch what's going on, and I am concerned about the time frame we are looking at.
''.... that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other...'' have you heard of Danegeld? [Danish -money] Old European countries tried that already [paying the Vikings] didn't work ...
@@user-McGiver uh economic ties does not mean only tribute or paying bribes. Are you suggesting that Western Europe and the USA have been paying protection money to Russia and China so that they won't attack them.
@@dnguyen9747 I mean that history shows that paying, using or dealing with hostiles is stupid and dangerus!... who choose hostility as a way to communicate should be respected for that choice and treated as one... as a hostile!
1:28:07 "Indeed, the problems surrounding nuclear waste are probably one of the most misunderstood and slandered areas of nuclear energy in general." 1:28:29 "Yes, managing the decommissioning of a nuclear submarine means dealing with some nuclear waste, which needs to be done carefuly and responsibly. But the scale of these problems is vastly excaggerated in popular conception." These quotes are very correct and appropriate! But then you go on to say: 1:28:41 "As dangerous and long-lived as high-grade nuclear waste is ..." and: 1:29:31 "Nuclear reactors also generate a much larger volume of low- and intermediate-level waste [...] This material only poses a moderate level of radiological risk. Generally speaking as it has been neutron-activated, it poses no threat to ground water contamination, and has a reasonably short half-life." These statements propagate the widely held misunderstanding that radioactive substances with long half-lives are more dangerous than those with short. The reality is that the most intensely radioactive substances have short half-lives, while the longer the half-life the less unstable the substance is. To wit: Fully stable isotopes, i.e. ones that are not radioactive at all, have infinite half-lives. But because big number = scary for most people, this myth and misunderstanding has been left to fester in people's minds. No doubt it is a useful myth to anti-nuclear activists. The reason that high-level waste like used fuel is treated with such extreme caution is twofold: * the actual _amount_ of highly radioactive (short-lived) fission-products contained in it, which is what makes it legitimately deadly for decades * the much more emotional aspect for transuranics, especially Plutonium, being bred inside the reactor by neutron-capture by Uranium-238. The general idea with burying used fuel is that "we dig it out of the ground, so we can put it back into the hole whence it came, or an equivalent hole". So the two natural isotopes of Uranium, 235 and 238, with half-lives of 700 mn and 4.3 bn years respectively, are accepted as they don't cause a net increase in the amount of radiation on the planet in general. However, Plutonium-239, with a half-life of around 24,500 years, falls between two stools: It's much shorter-lived than the two Uranium isotopes, so the rationale that it doesn't contribute to overall radiation levels isn't applicable. On the other hand, the half-life is far longer than we can manage in human, or civilisational, timescales. There is a rule of thumb that an isotope that is not being replenished will have decayed to insignificance after ten half-lives. And the often quoted figure that used fuel must be protected for "hundreds of thousands of years" is actually derived by multiplying Plutonium-239's half-life by ten to obtain roughly a quarter-million years. But in reality, even though Plutonium, were it to leak into the environment (which is unlikely given the care with which sites for deep geological storage are selected and the engineering that goes into them) _would_ increase radiation levels, it does not have the capacity to increase those levels to anything that matters biologically. There is a lot of leeway in how much radiation living things can tolerate, and natural background levels are orders of magnitude below what could be considered dangerous. Rant over. I also recommend this video, which is much more hands-on with spent nuclear fuel from the civilian sector, and when it becomes safe to handle by a few diffrent criteria: ua-cam.com/video/jM-b5-uD6jU/v-deo.html
Wow - at first, seeing an over 2-hour slot for this vid, I baulked - but I did it in stages, and I'm glad I did - very comprehensive, very clear, and conclusions spot-on. Also, I am better educated - I wasn't really sure how the three-pronged cooperation in the AUKUS pact would work, now I have a much firmer grounding, especially glad that all three nations will see substantial benefits from this.
Bro, I have had no idea what to think of the deal, or what the capabiities were. So much misinformation and media hot takes. You've really given me a clearer picture of what the whole situation is, thanks my man, great video.
I was in the RAN in the late 60's/70's. I had a much better relationship with my RN peers than the USN. Governments change, it takes a while for people to change.
I always found it funny whenever I read an expert opinion (unfortunately I can't remember who to accredit the quote too) say that it's President Xi himself who has done so much to make AUKUS possible. I mean 5 years ago I doubt you would picture the US sharing nuclear power secrets with Australia, even though Australia has been one of the US' strongest and longest lasting strategic partners in the world. It just really highlights how dangerous we all view Xi's ambitions and his tendency to renew his Presidentcy. China also benefitted greatly in learning about carrier design when they won the right to scrap HMAS Melbourne back in 1982. When it was towed from Australia to China, I think it languished for about a year before they scrapped it as they catalogued every bit of its design etc.They also used it to train PLAN aviators for aircraft carrier operations.
POHM here. Having been to Aus and served with Aus too, I can attest to both the brotherly relationship us brits have with your people. And the absolute professionalism of your diggers. I am proud that the UK will be a major ally in the bolstering of your defence industrial base, and knowing the quality of Australia, I have no doubt that we will also get access to world class expertise from your country that will bolster ours too. Recent events have unfortunatley shown that we have no choice but to re-arm. And looking at history, the only lads more tenacious than us are the Aussies, so I'm more than happy to have you as our allys in more than name. Your analysis is excellent, I wish more people were interested in these topics as you deserve so many more subs/views. Keep it up brother 👍
Aussie born dual Brit/Aus citizen here. I'm also very pleased that Australia and the UK will build SSN-AUKUS together. The relationship between the Anglosphere democracies (and especially the UK/US/AUS core, unlike Canada and New Zealand which are not entirely reliable).
My biggest takeaway from this agreement/treaty is the trust placed in the Australian government. China has assuredly invested some amount in infiltrating Australias government. Whether more or less so than the US or UK, I couldn't say, but the geographic location and economic ties certainly make it easier. Sharing nuclear secrets with a nation that has close economic ties to your direct geopolitical rival is definitely a bold and confident statement.
Much of Australia’s GDP comes from Knowledge and Services industries. Australia’s huge mining companies are transnationals with international shareholders. Thus, Sino-Australia trade has wide international implications, including if Australia were to decouple trading with China, while knowing other contributions to economy mean Australia would hurt less than the dire implications on China.
I don't get what your impling? You need to educate yourself in Australia's history. Actually it's the USA that is China's no1 trading partner! and China has infiltrated way more in the US defence establishments than China has politicly in Australia. Australia have pushed against Chinese threats thus suffered trade cancellations .......we do not sit on the fence nor do we sell our sole to the devil. It's in our history.
The MSM also exaggerates and leaves information out. They're lying to the Australian population about the nuclear submarines. The costs, the manufacturing and operation of the vessels.
How is it sir, you can calmly and logically impart a complete explanation of the need and direction of our submarine future. We have been punished with short sightedness , ignorance and political point scoring for the past decade. Thank you for deep dive into our submarine dependence, I am literally exhilarated with this refreshing couple of hours, my deepest thanks for your very informative input.
Wow! Im a real nerd when it comes to military matters, I had no idea about how good the Dreadnought (and SSN-AUKUS) will be. You make a very persuasive case for how awesome the class will be; and how cool that parts of the UKs next SSN will have parts coming from an Australian supply chain, vice versa
Great promotion for nuclear submarines, and the nuclear cycle in general. And an heroic attempt to paint their acquisition by Australia as a fair accompli. Nevertheless, a fleet of 10 to 20 conventional subs - with AIP - would actually address Australia's defence needs, as opposed to just being a tag-along to the US strategic deterrent. And save Australia hundreds of billions.
20 AIPs is insane, they would have to be tiny German size SSKs, which would take an age to transit to their patrol areas (and in fact have to noisily run their diesels all the way in their transit to patrol area)
Small note, American nuclear vessels are classified by type, generation of the designer, then designer (i.e. S9G, being Submarine, 9th generation by General Electric) rather than how you were saying it, SG9.
When I first heard that there was going to be an AUKUS Class of submarine, I assumed it would be shared between the three countries, or have much commonality. This video made it sound like the US replacement for the Virginia Class would be significantly different from the AU/UK AUKUS Class.
Given Virginia builds up to block VII have been programmed out to the 2040s, its likely the UK Dreadnohght programme has been a testbed for a lot of new tech the US will adopt
While you did point one exercise kill by the Collins class against a stationary ship, it would have been more balanced to point out that the Collins class has also scored exercise kills on SSN's hunting it on multiple occasions. While you point out that the Gotlands kill was without active sonar being used against it, you fail to mention Rankins kill was against active sonar being used by a destroyer and an SSN with helicopter support.
You miss the point, who cares if it did better on another day, Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond. Useless if you want to play with the big boys.
Good video, I'm hoping there'll be more cooperation between the UK and Australia going forward, preferably CANZUK style military and economic cooperation with free trade and free movement.
This is a good manner of information delivery. I would like to say the amount of information constantly being given without sectioned blocks does make it either slightly confusing or slightly boring… slightly.
Please do more modern military content! I love your analysis capability! You are doing so great it is so interesting and entertaining to listen to your perspective and analysis! You can choose whatever topic or country or system doesn't matter, really, the modern stuff is so interesting. I would love to see more content in this regard!
IP and export controls exerted by nations of origin are becoming major issues as advanced weapon systems get woven into more and more militaries, driven by the war in Ukraine and Chinese aggression. Manufacturers are loathe to give up IP without compensation because sustainment then becomes competitive vs a monopoly. And countries like the US and Germany have highly restrictive export/re-export rules that are often driven not by any strategy, but by some sort of political policy. Hopefully AUKUS can resolve this stuff up front, especially as Australia locks down specs early and often!
This isn't your Dad's ITAR. Going into AUKUS is joining what has been an exclusive club of two for almost 70 years. There will be no export of this tech from Aus to other parties.
Funnily enough, the australians should go with the french nuclear sub; This is the most recent attack nuclear sub right now, with the very last techs, requieres a small crew due to its high level of automatisation (60 vs 110 for the Astute, and 140 for the Virginia), is smaller due to its smaller crew, hence costs much less than the US/UK current attack subs. Plus the shipyards building them for France could start pumping out subs for australia by 2027 when their domestic production stops. As a result, instead of 6 Virginia class subs (at an undeterminated time), which would translate in only 2 boats active at any time, the australians could have 12 to 18 Suffren Class subs, so 4 to 6 nuclear subs at sea at any time, by the early 30s (accounting that the Suffren is twice cheaper than the Astute, and 3 times cheaper than the Virginia). It would be the most recent class operational on earth, and profit from the fact that the first produced would have been tested by the french, so mature by the time the australians get them. And the refuelling question is a non issue. Subs need heavy maintenance every 10 years or so, the french do the refuilling (a routine 3 weeks operation) during this time. And as they use low enrichment uranium, a lot of hasles disappear: Australia, like all nations on earth, already produces, uses, and manages low enriched uranium.
Outstanding ,rewarding the viewer with a broad understanding of the AUKUS program beyond the typical media coverage of the “ hurt feelings “ of the French . Capabilities , time lines and strategic threats all mandated a different solution to the one on offer from the French program and superficial review of the Australian political issues makes it clear why this was not acted on initially. Most of note however is the absolutely correct analyses of the ridiculous characterization of China as a victim of the same international world order that transformed it in 40 years from a country with limited industrial base and severe poverty to an economy nationally in contention with those of the West. The benefits of participation in this world order were afforded the Chinese despite their complete disregard for intellectual property rules , poor access to Chinese domestic markets for western companies and predatory trade practices with governments subsidies for key industries that were designed to erode overseas industrial capacities. Chinese attempts at hegemony in trade relations with many overseas trading partners awakened the world as to what the new Chinese amended rules based order would look like and their rapid military buildup has tipped their hand as to the mechanism by which they plan to amend these rules. Well done.
Sharing the technology for a nuclear powered attack submarine just shows the level of trust we in the United States have in Australia. Along with Canada we are all former members of the British Empire with a common language that almost feels like we're family, like cousins. 😄👍
France may have been the birthplace of the Enlightenment but Britain, the USA and the rest of the Anglophone empire have been it’s life support system and have tried to propagate a rules based order which attempts to be win / win for the participants. Any chance you could get the Kiwis to up their game a bit ?
USA refuses to sell Canada Nukes subs, and the only reason Australia got them is USA is concerned about losing power in west pacific and Australia having 1 month fuel supply. So we couldn't fight a war. USA have no choice but to give us nuke boats. Don't think you were happy about it
Australians are not fond of the ol' Empire, as our national identity was mostly formed in WWI, in which British officers had, shall we say, not the best reputation with us. WWII didn't help. But by the same token, we've never forgotten the US's involvement in the pacific (despite Douglas MacArthur). It's hard to overstate how important the two world wars are in how we see ourselves. That's not to say we dislike the British now, much less the UK, and we haven't forgotten the good they've done.
We, the UK, should have never turned our back on Australia and our other commonwealth family. CANZ have always had the UK back and we owe those countries big time.
Well grudgingly Churchills choice not to reinforce a failure (Singapore) might have been right. And our boys made Kokoda a success despite McArthurs ignorance of the mountainous jungle terrain. The relationship with the motherland was never the same. Since then we have been infatuated with all things uncle sam and briefly then looked towards China as partners. It has come full circle.
@@grosey11 The question of where to direct resources was a major issue, Australia understood that if the Nazis won the battle of North Africa, conquered Egypt and cut thr Suez Canal, that would gravely endanger Australian national security and its economy. Churchill also said that ultimately if they had to choose between protecting Egypt and Australia, then Australia would come first. And pretty much as soon as Japan declared war, Australian troops in the Med were sent back and by 1942 were engaged against the Japanese Empire.
@@PosthumousAddress they weren’t sent back. It was a political furore that Churchill resisted, knowing the value of Australians as shock troops. MacArthur was on the record as having little regard for Australian troops. Insisting that they fought in backwaters and not gain unnecessary glory on the island hopping trip across the South West pacific.
I don't think the UK had much choice honestly. Today in Australia we generally understand that towards the end of WW2 it was clear that the UK was no longer a superpower and couldn't help us, and only the US could. So it was a natural transition and I have never heard of complaints that the UK abandoned us. I think the generation that may have felt that way has largely passed on.
You know the eukalele is a portugues guitar that's called a cavaquino brought by the portuguese late 1800 to Hawaiiand they changed the top string to a lower note
Main objection by Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and socialist left Global South, to AUKUS submarine deal and overall strategic alliance is 'interoperability'. Taken as a trinity whole, US Virginia class, US Ohio SSGN, UK RN Astute class, and future AU RAN SSN boats use similar torpedoes, and similar strike cruise missiles. With crews trained to similar level. That means that either of three's boats can take missions of another partner , as needed. So in Indo-Pacific, Chinese PLAN would not be fighting three submerged fleets. But a single large SSN force.
Another component of nuclear waste generated by Australian industry is the nuclear waste that is a biproduct of extracting and refining mineral resources. Most of this refinement is done overseas (which has generated controversy). It seems likely that Australia will have to accept the burden of processing nuclear waste in some forms regardless of having a nuclear energy industry,
Either that, or pay through the nose for it. Then, there is the consideration of the ethical responsibility for responsibly disposing of that wasted- the US doesn't exactly have a great record on that front, eh? That is a complication that I hadn't considered... (Cheers? Ugh...)
@@alanbstard4so you want to potentially lose a war because of a few keg’s of waste? There are thousands of reactors all around the world who deal with this disposal without a problem day in day out. Speak for yourself not the rest of Australia
Y'know what, isn't it a bit backwards that one builds a massive surface fleet, carriers and all, without a potent submarine force to protect it? To me this sounds more like a case of keeping the shipyards and industries humming, paying people wages lest they get some ideas about changing government. A bit of parade and propaganda probably doesn't hurt too. It's just their fumbling opaqueness about what they're doing, along with a fair sprinkle of face saving and court intrigues, that is endangering everybody else =="
My only complaint is that I’m super addicted to your modern Australian military content and prefer it to the WW2 content 😂😂😂
me2
Yes me too - I find the modern analysis much more interesting.
Love all your work ...
Yesss
It sucks because nobody else covers it
This should be required viewing before giving opinions on AUKUS. So many questions answered in just over 2 hours. Great video.
Agreed, it's absolutely ridiculous how uninformed so many people are about this.
I still don't like this sub deal... Too much financial burden which can be used on other portfolios
@@fatdoi003 exactly
best go to the sources of the experts in the various specialist piblications
Australia acting as if AUKUS is a 100% go ahead as long as Australia government and and ship builders and RAN can meet the demands needed to make it happen. The real threat is it hasn't been approved by congress yet to allow the technology transfer to make AUKUS happen. So far several issues has mounted on congress to not approve the technology such as list below
1. Admirals claimed the US won't be able to provide Virginia class submarines due to falling short for their own.
2. Military strategists experts within the US claim Australia not fit to meet the needs for accidents if was to accur.
3. Pressure is mounted on congress from other countries claiming to ban US submarines from allowing to use their ports due to AUKUS pact in protests. This will be a problem for US to maintain strength in the indo pacific and through Asia. This has arisen concern with many US senators in backlash for Australia to have technology to be able to build the submarines.
AUKUS is a gamble. And Australia to be able to build submarines or even have gap Virginia class submarines is nothing more than a wishful dream road. It hasn't been guaranteed despite the challenges Australia will face on its own to make it happen. The US president can approve the submarines. But it cannot go ahead without congress approval in technology transfer. That's the reality Australia is facing
I was a submariner on the Oberon boats of the 1980’s. When it came to exercises we had to send up flare to left the surface ship know exactly where we were. During RIMPAC 1984, Australia’s two submarines were part of a fleet against the U.S. our submarines were the only vessels from our to survive the games. Oxley in fact sailed into Pearl Harbour flying the skull and crossbones.
yeah submarines do seem to win excersizes from what ive seen. it makes me worried for the royal navy which by reputation has great asw warfare pedegree but can you reliably defend your carriers from subs?
Have you ever visited the Oberon class submarine in Fremantle? There's one on display at the WA Maritime Museum. I did a tour with a submariner. I imagine you'll enjoy it getting to see your old workplace again.
They were a very good sub.... They should have bought up a few extra ones before going to Collin's
I listened to a podcast where they talked about how the Aussie Oberons were upgraded with an extremely advanced fire control system for Sub Harpoon, and also getting data link information back (telecom back from ADCAP) and that the USN was quite impressed with what the RAN did with their Oberons (which, like Collins, were pretty large for diesel boats, at least compared to say a 209)
@@tdb7992 In reality they were ghastly places to work. The whole thing STINKS of diesel and the submariners and most of the surfaces in the boat have a sheen of diesel on them
You could always spot a submariner when they first got back by their greasy outlook. lol
I'd been waiting for someone to do a long-form video just like this. Super well done. Really hammers home the slam dunk advantage of nuclear powered subs over conventional and shows how, given the distances between Australia and the places where its sub forces would need to be employed, nuclear was Australia's only sensible option. I'm also grateful that hypohysterical pointed out the host of limitations imposed on the US carrier in the war game in which the Swedish sub, the Gotland, "sunk" the carrier. I'd heard the tale over and over again but not until now had I heard about all of the limitations imposed on the carrier, limitations that made the war game unrealistic and caused everyone who heard the tale to believe that US carriers are more vulnerable to conventional subs than they are.
Same, the amount of robot voice videos on this topic that all sound like they've reworded the same poorly written article are the worst thing on here.
There are good arguments against nukes. Nukes are noisier and constantly release easily tracked waste heat from their reactors... these drawbacks are mitigated by keeping to cold deep seas. Unfortunately the seas between Australia and China are mostly warm and shallow, ESPECIALLY the naval choke points we'd need to protect Australia or even blockade China if that's your bag. The Japanese certainly realise this, and the Russians too. Even China itself... they have been building diesels new for good reason even though they've easily got the manufacturing to go all nuke. The Americans have even been thinking about bringing back diesel subs because of their advantages in litoral waters. It's just not the inherent limitations of nuke technology either. Going nuke makes Australia completely reliant on the US. Former Australian Intelligence Officer and military academic Clinton Fernandez wrote a whole book on this. Australia is surrendering the idea of being an independant middle power in favour of needlessly our sovereignty... becoming a sub-imperial power just as US power wanes. Attached to a declining power just as we were in the old days before WWII with Britain. The US MIC has been trying to encourage this thinking in Australia for years... it's sad the Labor government signed on to this.
Agreed.
In a real war a diesel boat will have to be lucky beyond belief.
Or the carrier is given specific orders to perform its mission in such a way that it loses its most important attribute.
Did New Zealander just fall on her sword over this?
In a real war, subs do not attack carriers. They attack logistical lines. Like the replenishment fleet of the enemy, or merchant ships with food/fuel/materials. Why use a sub to take down a carrier, when you can use missiles, mines, airplanes etc?
As skewed as the exercise was, it had ONE goal. To train the fleet in finding the sub. Which they never did. For weeks. The WHOLE fleet were unable to do it. And it was successful. The US changed their ASW protocols to better be able to find AIP subs, including a more clear emphasise on helicopters with dipping sonars.
No, the reality is that if a war between China and Taiwan broke out, the most effective way to combat China is to block all sea lanes to and from it. This can be done with great effect by conventional, silent subs. To snorkel every 3 weeks close to Sumatra, and still basically block all oil delivery to China, is vastly different than "prowling the ocean like a great white shark". It is cool and all, but not strictly necessary in a REAL conflict.
I'd love to watch the classified black and orange themed powerpoint presentation, that convinced the Australian govt to do this
😂
He knows his stuff
Hough me too haha. Just imagine
I understood that reference
I think HypohystericalHistory deserves to be up there with Perun.
About aukus I think people are getting hung up on the subs (a big deal for sure) but ignoring the broader meaning of this pact. I foresee australia becoming the central hub for uk and usa military projection in the region. Something they were supposedly already discussing with France prior to aukus. I foresee combined military production, research and development between the 3 nations supporting each other in every aspect of defence in the aisian region. Research, tech, army, navy and airforce
True. AI, QM, Air and Sea Drones, Scramjets and other hypersonics and, long range missiles.
@petersinclair3997 yeah and permanent presence of u.s. and uk nuclear submarines, air power etc.
No sovereignty for Australians in their own country.... Still slaves to the masters
Nailed it. President Biden probably said more than he was meant when he did that interview and said how AUKUS "checkmates China", due to rotation of one RN Astute and four Virginia USN (which will be based there at Fleet Base West and will probably start having mixed crews and eventually be the Virginias the RAN gets, working up to fully crewing them, before SSN-AUKUS enters service)
It's about USN and RAN nuclear subs that could carry out blockade of the Straits of Malacca and choke off Chinese imports in any conflict
I never realised that Ssn are china's bane in a actual conflict, they have a lot of shipping and as large as their surface navy may be, ww2 proved that you cant just simply escort all the naval traffic. Really cool and informative video
The Malacca Strait is a bottle that is easily corked.
Yes, and their lack of capability in the field is also shown by their inability to construct nuc boats of their own that are less than decades/generations behind- I would think that this would also be evidence of a likely inability to successfully counter modern SSNs, due to a lack of understanding of submarine acoustics, etc, if only for lack of practical experience...
Though, I recall recently seeing an article (which I didn't read) that had a headline that went something like 'China's newest class of nuclear subs are no longer a complete joke', which, tbh, doesn't really make it seem like they've made a heck of a lot of progress.
(spelling/grammar edit)
@@grosey11
I wonder if the practical aspects of such a blockade have been given enough thought... Japan, the ROK, ROC, etc, may have a thing or two to say about it: will every ship be stopped and searched, etc?
And the clock is ticking on that one, too, with all of the infrastructure being built towards alternatives- ports and pipelines, etc, that would push the theoretical blockade back to the straight of Hormuz, which would far more problematic, both militarily and geopolitically (not that Malacca would be as easy, strictly militarily, as it us portrayed: for example, China may not have a sub fleet that could counter it, but (whatever massive problems their land forces have), Russia sure does...).
@@bholdr----0 ...You do realise detection and counterdetection are basically entirely separate things, right? This is excluding the fact the PLAN operates conventional subs that are already extremely quiet, which throws a wrench in the works of the whole "They don't know anything about submarines." After all, the distinction between nukes and conventionals acoustics-wise is mostly in the reactor, rather than some fundamental difference in quieting philosophy.
Ugh... of course. That us why I qualified my comment. Read it again. (See: 'a likely', and, 'if only', etc... its frustrating when people- not necessarily you (another qualification) seem to try to score points or whatever when someone (even marginally) disagrees while trying to contribute to the conversation)...
NUANCE!
(Also, 'entirely separate things'... jeez... do you think, for example, that the US doesn't learn from their own mistakes, successes, technology, etc, etc? I would understand if you thought that they were obverse, etc, but, 'completely'? Ugh.)
Edit- pls excuse my tone, it isn't personal, I'm just tired of the narrowness of oblivation superseding nuance and conversation, it's not just you.)
As an American interested in the modern military doctrines of other countries I appreciate your video’s immensely thank you and keep up the good work!
Keep up the great work being the best youtuber out there! (BTW make a Patreon or the UA-cam member thing so you can get the coin you deserve from making these amazing videos!)
BABE WAKE, A NEW 2 HOUR DOCUMENTARY ON NAVAL POLICY JUST DROPPED.
Love your stuff!
It's been too long since the last deep dive! Great to see you putting out the quality content again
I’ve been waiting weeks for your next video! Love your content!!! Please never stop
Glad to see that Aussie/US/UK foreign policy is continuing in the right direction! AUKUS seems to be a bold move and I sincerely hope that our current and future leaders can maintain this level of cooperation
The secret to maintaining commitment (more important than cooperation) is tying up financial investment years in advance. The cooperation aspect is ensured by the deeply embedded Five Eyes.
There is an operational need for a smaller super silent type of conventional submarine. For use in places where the large nuclear boats cannot safely go.
FYI. The COVID origin is now confirmed to be a leak from a PLA lab in Wuhan.
This sub deal ain't gonna get my vote...
@@fatdoi003 we need both Nuke and D/E subs. This particular deal is not good
@@alanbstard4 French subs are already nuclear... why not just change the order from diesel to nuclear?
@@fatdoi003 I agree re nuke boats. New Suffron class great boat. Still need D/E as well. A mixed fleet. type 212 plus suffron class nuclear boats
I remember watching a interview on Australian edition of 60 minutes with Mel Gibson in 1987 warning us about western countries helping the rise of China.
Nearly all his predictions came true.
Yes the west was mesmerised by the size of the potential chinese market and were played like real suckers by the chinese. When business is driving foreign policy this is the sort of management of national security you get. Even the US which gives high priority to national security matters got screwed by them. This deception by the chinese continues as they talk peaceful rise while building a huge navy at record speed while giving no hint as to their intentions. At least now a few people are starting to wake up to the threat. Let’s hope it is not too late.
Wait, as in Mel Gibson the actor?
Which ones?
Yeah, but then he also warned us about the Jews. Dunno if his fears are the same as ours.
the west also benefitted greatly from the trade and it lifted 700 million people out of poverty and china could have still traded with countries outside the west and then only those countries would've gotten the benefits
Thanks for another exceptional and contemporary video. I'm 49 this year, and it's a little boggling that the last of class of the AUKUS submarines will be delivered as I die of old age. If I'm fortunate.
It's ridiculous. I swear I heard like a decade ago that we would be building our own subs here in SA, then later we gave the contract to France or something? Now here we are a decade later and a billion dollars in the hole, back to the original plan. Our government is so shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they're built too late.
I'm 22, born in 2001, so they will be in the middle of deliveries as I turn your current age
Think of it as Australia getting the tools to defend from Imperial Japan years before the later actually launched its Pacific conquest campaign in WWII;
That's a good analogy.
Haha, it actually like Australia getting capability against Imperial Japan only in the late 1960s, long after the war has finished.
You 'll get the submarines in the 2050s by which time the concept of a big nuclear submarine will be obsolete and the competition between the US and China has already been resolved.
It's just a scheme to rob you of half a trillion dollars you could have used for your own development. Remember, the US has no friends, you are a potential competitor too., the one that is especially dangerous because you are an isolated continent rich in resources.
When it come's to Naval asset's our military political / planning has such a bad record it border's on treasonous and now that they are going woke I don't hold much hope for the future , even now number's in the labor party = our government are building to prevent the nuclear sub initiative all from moving forward at all .
I wouldn't think of it like that at all. It may be way too late by the time we get them. If we do get them in time, they will be a huge asset for deterrence.
At the current pace of the AUKUS program, versus Xi's often stated intent to get Taiwan back by 2026 (which would almost certainly ignite a war), this would be more like Australia getting all the tools to defend from Japan in the 1950s, some ten years after the war with Japan had already started and finished.
This was an incredible video.. Thanks for your efforts! Excellent work!
Always worth the wait when you put out a vid mate. Thanks the the deep dive into the AUKUS program.
This is a fantastic assessment of the AUKUS agreement! Thanks!
14:10 I would say 'wil be' instead 'is' the most advanced non USN carrier. Charles de Gaul is actually nuclear powered, operates Rafale M instead of J-15 and also has 2 CATOBARs and they both operate around 40 fighters and it also has AEWA Hawkeyes. And Charles de Gaulle is actually fully operational!
There's also the two 65,000 ton QE class carriers of the Royal Navy which aren't as big as Fujian, but I wouldn't bet on them being inferior. The F-35Bs they carry are definitely going to be superior to their Chinese counterparts.
@@trolleriffic yep good point, they're probably a toss up depending on the situation. Fujian probably better when you need suffiently large aripower to wage a large air to ground campaign and QE probably better at an outer air battle with F-35Bs
Ahh I’ve been waiting for this. This is my fav page, thanks for you’re solid work legend!
The quality of this video is insane. Extremely well done mate
Guess im not going to sleep just yet. love this channel
Extremely informative. It's kind of you to put in so much work. Very helpful.
CCP: we want to live peacefully with Australia
Also CCP (April 2020): Australia is like dirty gum stuck to the bottom of China's shoe
Sadly people tend to have short collective memories. China tipped their hand on what their preferred revisions to the rules based order would look like in their trade feud with Australia. Potential vassal states should take note , as an American I feel that Australia has an important lesson to teach the world on this issue lest we “ sell the rope they plan to hang us with “ .
@@hrnfw4818 Too late. Australian iron ore and metallurgical grade coal is used to build China's Naval fleet.
Funny how iron ore was not one of the products banned by China.
@@peterinns5136 Reminiscent of the Australian iron ore trade to Japan in the 1930's coming back south in the 1940's.
@@SpeedyCM Exactly. It was scrap metal in those days "Pig Iron Bob"
Glad to see a new video man!
Its the speed and range that really sets these nuke boats apart from any other form of sub.
Imagine a boat that can approach its targets using world class sensors for guidance, at night, and then shower it with heavy weight torpedoes and surface attack missiles then exit the area at 30+ knots. Try driving a car at 70kph down a highway and then imagining an 8000 ton vehicle, 600 feet below the ocean's surface doing the same.
They really are an ocean predator that no Navy can easily defend against. We are blessed that our behavior towards the United States and the UK over the last century in both peacetime and wartime has elevated our country to the status of most reliable and trusted allies. Our vast country with all its wealth contains a tiny population on a par with the size of some International cities.
It must be an enviable target for many who would like to possess it. Without our strategic partners such as the USA and the UK we could not hope to defend it against many nations such as China, Indonesia, India etc. With them inside the AUKUS framework we are unbeatable.
I guess that's why two of them hit undersea mountains at high speed...world class sensors are no match for stupid people in charge.
conventional subs better in shallows of South China sea. nuke boats better open sea
@@alanbstard4 Yep. Also, easy to see in clear shallow water.
@@bossdog1480 The Germans had that problem in the Mediterranean during WWII.
@@alanbstard4Subs wouldn’t be operating there, it’s too heavily monitored. There are other spots along the trade route with deeper water that would be happy hunting grounds.
Outstanding as usual. You have succeeded in changing my mind on the subject.
I worked at the company where the Collins class subs were built, and saw the launch of the last boat - HMAS Rankin in 2001. It's hard to believe it was more than 20 yers ago.
I've been very curious to see what you have to say about this, and, thoroughly pleased to see another video of yours.
Good work your videos are always informative and entertaining. I know its hard work and I appreciate your efforts. Another great upload as always.
What am awesome podcast mate!
Hearing the aussie voice for over 2 hours was quite pleasant.
You could split this into 4 parts for bulk views but damn, my Saturday morning has been educational!
Cheers
Excellent, comprehensive, (as always)Thank you!
Another awesome dissertation, thanks again you for your excellent work mate 👍
Just as a point of note, while it is true that it is possible for space based systems to spot the snorkel of a submarine, its unlikely, and at least in transit phase not very valuable.
My father was Int Corps for 36 years, so worked a lot with satellite based intelligence. Without breaking the Official Secrets Act he informed me that Its great for planning fires on say an airbase, or some other static target, but for moving targets, including ships and fleets, at best its going to give you a general search area, not a pin point location. Other assets will need to be moved into that area for a closer search.
People often forget that while satellite surveillance technology is good, it is not yet real time. At least not to my knowledge.
A small addendum to an otherwise excellent presentation. Though I have to admit, when I see a hypohystericalhistory video drop I tend to click play before I check the title.... You have yet to disappoint.
EDIT: Oh, thermoclines affect most electromagnetic energy as well. Divers wearing dry suits can carry radios for comms, I have been on dives were one of us was a couple of metres below a thermocline, and the other a couple of metres above, not more than maybe 5 - 6 metres apart, but we could not communicate because the radio wave would just bounce off the thermocline.
This is really just in there for the sake of people who may not necessarily believe that this happens. It does, admittedly a personal radio for short range comms between divers is not going to have the power of a military grade active sonar but it does not seem to matter in most cases. Its why dipping sonars are so often used. You can drop them below the thermocline.
Radio and sonar work differently you couldn’t receive radio to each other because radio waves wavelength are large and the difference in seawater density at the thermocline caused the incident ray to veer off enough to miss you. Sonar is sound waves and I believe it’s to do with how fast sound travels in water and again the varying density of water in the thermocline and the doppler effect.
You may be correct In 2023 but in 2043? I think everyone is ignoring what a gamechanger spaceX starship is going to be. A rocket that can put 100 tonnes into orbit. Launched several times a week and at a fraction of the cost. I put it to you a constellation of giant satellites will be able to pick up a snorkelling submarine.
That may be true then, but now and into the future with real time imagery analysis that can be crunched by AI on higher and higher resolution photo's I think its more than possible. I mean even commercially you can run photo's through an AI and get it to recognize patterns, let alone what million dollar budgets+ do on military databases.
It also depends on how many you have. If you have enough satellites orbiting to have constant coverage, you can maintain a track while it is physically possible to see the sub from space. I don't know if the CCP has that capability right now and if they could maintain that capability when everyone wants to shoot down enemy satellites, but I would assume they're planning on putting lots of eyes up there as quickly as possible.
I think he covered the narrow swathes of satellite imaging in another video, pointing out that it was not the same as tracking required to direct fire/missiles.
I would really love to see your analysis regarding Japans geopolitical landscape and their defence policy as a response to the changing environment. With a deep dive into their military industrial base and arsenal/equipment/technology.
massive industrial ship building infrastructure
10:18 Type 052D Destroyer
12:05 Type 55 Cruister 112 VLS cells
Lianing, Shan Dong Limitation of ski-jump carriers
Upcoming Type 04 carrier
17:40 interference in Australia
43:00 Gotland AIP "sank" CVN Ronald Reagan
China's navy is to neutralize hostile US power projection in it's own backyard.
As someone who has listened to every minute of every one of your videos, it's nice to hear your voice again. Keep up the good work.
Bold of you to drop this on Origin night bro….2hrs! ok I’ll get another beer…
Hell yeah, I come home from work and see a HHH video. Thank you
After watching this, I have to say that the analysis was superb. This is highly informative. It taught me a lot about a topic I don't really know about. I guess I can actually say I do know a fair bit about it after listening to video 1:25:10 . I think we can fairly safely conclude that you are a very bright individual with an extremely impressive work ethic.
SSKs can be an effective replacement to SSNs if your area of operations is a smaller area like the Baltic or Mediterranean-sea but in the open ocean SSNs are the only real option.
How about the South China Sea?
@@keibin92 SSNs
You get it! Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond
@@keibin92 If the South China Sea was next to Australia then SSKs would make a lot more sense. Unfortunately some thoughtless idiot went and put it thousands of km away near China instead! What's that about?
@@trolleriffic Exactly. Also, the AuSSNs will just as likely be operating south of India sinking Chinese merchant shipping and blockading the Strait of Malacca
Been patiently waiting for new H3 & did not disappoint!!😂
Nice work,this is better than anything on tv.
As an American, I hope Australia will be able to maintain the will and the economy to maintain this increase in capabilities. The deterrence to the next great war can only be achieve if countries significantly increase their readiness so that certain bad actors will not be tempted to make a land/power grab. The last thirty years was all about the end of the Cold War and reaping economic dividends via globalization and the dream that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other. That dream is over. I don't know if any countries had the will to claim that in 2010, China would be a major military threat to the Indo Pacific. All of us were crossing our fingers and toes hoping that will economic prosperity, China will transition to a more open and liberal society. Well, that didn't happen. We now know that China went in the other direction and the winds of war are beginning to stir once again. It feels like the 2020's is a repeat of the 1920's. I never thought I would be such parallel in my lifetime but there it is. I hope that with with increase in military spending throughout the Indo Pacific and else where (Western Europe), the military industrial complexes in these countries will gain more power and influence that they won't become the tails and wag the dogs of war.
I agree with your argument, and I must say that when I did my six years in my Jungle Green Suit, in the end, I was feeling optimistic that we wouldn't be making war anymore. Extremely Silly of me when my Grandfather was a Gunner in the Great War, my Father was a Gunner in the Second World War, I never left Australia so I just practised for the entire time of my enlistment I just can't convince the blokes at the RSL that despite who my friends were and what they did plus the souvenirs they gave me I only left Country for holiday's in the USA. Then my Son joined the NAVY and was a Bridge Officer, so four Generations of military service and I stayed home, but I wish that the Government would fast track the building of factories for ammunition production, possibly start a Bushmaster acquisition program for the full range of their Transports and Weapons system's. Also, with modern materials and engines re-visit the Jindervic, it may be subsonic, but with an update, it would have a range of well over a thousand miles. And the SkySweeper is a cheap and quickly deployable answer to, again with modern materials and equipment very adequate for everything from mortars to jet attack planes, Ukraine has taught us that it is better to have to dispose of old ammunition than not have enough.
I watch what's going on, and I am concerned about the time frame we are looking at.
''.... that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other...''
have you heard of Danegeld? [Danish -money] Old European countries tried that already [paying the Vikings] didn't work ...
@@user-McGiver uh economic ties does not mean only tribute or paying bribes. Are you suggesting that Western Europe and the USA have been paying protection money to Russia and China so that they won't attack them.
@@dnguyen9747 I mean that history shows that paying, using or dealing with hostiles is stupid and dangerus!... who choose hostility as a way to communicate should be respected for that choice and treated as one... as a hostile!
@@user-McGiver in that case, we should have nuked Russia, China and North Korea by now.
What a superb video. Best thing I have seen or read on AUKUS. Well done. Subscribed!
Powerhouse stuff mate, well done.
Absolute fantastic fucking video as always. Your content keeps me going.
1:28:07 "Indeed, the problems surrounding nuclear waste are probably one of the most misunderstood and slandered areas of nuclear energy in general."
1:28:29 "Yes, managing the decommissioning of a nuclear submarine means dealing with some nuclear waste, which needs to be done carefuly and responsibly. But the scale of these problems is vastly excaggerated in popular conception."
These quotes are very correct and appropriate! But then you go on to say:
1:28:41 "As dangerous and long-lived as high-grade nuclear waste is ..."
and:
1:29:31 "Nuclear reactors also generate a much larger volume of low- and intermediate-level waste [...] This material only poses a moderate level of radiological risk. Generally speaking as it has been neutron-activated, it poses no threat to ground water contamination, and has a reasonably short half-life."
These statements propagate the widely held misunderstanding that radioactive substances with long half-lives are more dangerous than those with short.
The reality is that the most intensely radioactive substances have short half-lives, while the longer the half-life the less unstable the substance is. To wit: Fully stable isotopes, i.e. ones that are not radioactive at all, have infinite half-lives.
But because big number = scary for most people, this myth and misunderstanding has been left to fester in people's minds. No doubt it is a useful myth to anti-nuclear activists.
The reason that high-level waste like used fuel is treated with such extreme caution is twofold:
* the actual _amount_ of highly radioactive (short-lived) fission-products contained in it, which is what makes it legitimately deadly for decades
* the much more emotional aspect for transuranics, especially Plutonium, being bred inside the reactor by neutron-capture by Uranium-238. The general idea with burying used fuel is that "we dig it out of the ground, so we can put it back into the hole whence it came, or an equivalent hole". So the two natural isotopes of Uranium, 235 and 238, with half-lives of 700 mn and 4.3 bn years respectively, are accepted as they don't cause a net increase in the amount of radiation on the planet in general. However, Plutonium-239, with a half-life of around 24,500 years, falls between two stools: It's much shorter-lived than the two Uranium isotopes, so the rationale that it doesn't contribute to overall radiation levels isn't applicable. On the other hand, the half-life is far longer than we can manage in human, or civilisational, timescales. There is a rule of thumb that an isotope that is not being replenished will have decayed to insignificance after ten half-lives. And the often quoted figure that used fuel must be protected for "hundreds of thousands of years" is actually derived by multiplying Plutonium-239's half-life by ten to obtain roughly a quarter-million years. But in reality, even though Plutonium, were it to leak into the environment (which is unlikely given the care with which sites for deep geological storage are selected and the engineering that goes into them) _would_ increase radiation levels, it does not have the capacity to increase those levels to anything that matters biologically. There is a lot of leeway in how much radiation living things can tolerate, and natural background levels are orders of magnitude below what could be considered dangerous.
Rant over. I also recommend this video, which is much more hands-on with spent nuclear fuel from the civilian sector, and when it becomes safe to handle by a few diffrent criteria:
ua-cam.com/video/jM-b5-uD6jU/v-deo.html
Wow - at first, seeing an over 2-hour slot for this vid, I baulked - but I did it in stages, and I'm glad I did - very comprehensive, very clear, and conclusions spot-on. Also, I am better educated - I wasn't really sure how the three-pronged cooperation in the AUKUS pact would work, now I have a much firmer grounding, especially glad that all three nations will see substantial benefits from this.
hell yea. this is your best work yet, hh. big up that
Ok white boy lmao 🤡
Bro, I have had no idea what to think of the deal, or what the capabiities were. So much misinformation and media hot takes. You've really given me a clearer picture of what the whole situation is, thanks my man, great video.
I was in the RAN in the late 60's/70's. I had a much better relationship with my RN peers than the USN. Governments change, it takes a while for people to change.
Wrong.
@@cattledog901 Care you explain your ridiculous statement?
Thank you.!!! I’ve gobbled up almost all of your
UA-cam and TicToc content! THANK YOU!! I’ve learned so much!
I always found it funny whenever I read an expert opinion (unfortunately I can't remember who to accredit the quote too) say that it's President Xi himself who has done so much to make AUKUS possible. I mean 5 years ago I doubt you would picture the US sharing nuclear power secrets with Australia, even though Australia has been one of the US' strongest and longest lasting strategic partners in the world. It just really highlights how dangerous we all view Xi's ambitions and his tendency to renew his Presidentcy.
China also benefitted greatly in learning about carrier design when they won the right to scrap HMAS Melbourne back in 1982. When it was towed from Australia to China, I think it languished for about a year before they scrapped it as they catalogued every bit of its design etc.They also used it to train PLAN aviators for aircraft carrier operations.
Holy! Nothing makes me happier than a new hypohystericalhistory upload. Best channel on YT ngl
This is such a great video. One of the most objective and unbiased videos.
Great work. Well articulated. Keep ‘em coming
POHM here. Having been to Aus and served with Aus too, I can attest to both the brotherly relationship us brits have with your people. And the absolute professionalism of your diggers.
I am proud that the UK will be a major ally in the bolstering of your defence industrial base, and knowing the quality of Australia, I have no doubt that we will also get access to world class expertise from your country that will bolster ours too.
Recent events have unfortunatley shown that we have no choice but to re-arm. And looking at history, the only lads more tenacious than us are the Aussies, so I'm more than happy to have you as our allys in more than name.
Your analysis is excellent, I wish more people were interested in these topics as you deserve so many more subs/views. Keep it up brother 👍
your country is going broke
Aussie born dual Brit/Aus citizen here. I'm also very pleased that Australia and the UK will build SSN-AUKUS together. The relationship between the Anglosphere democracies (and especially the UK/US/AUS core, unlike Canada and New Zealand which are not entirely reliable).
Thank for your increase immersion in my cold water play-through.
My biggest takeaway from this agreement/treaty is the trust placed in the Australian government. China has assuredly invested some amount in infiltrating Australias government. Whether more or less so than the US or UK, I couldn't say, but the geographic location and economic ties certainly make it easier. Sharing nuclear secrets with a nation that has close economic ties to your direct geopolitical rival is definitely a bold and confident statement.
Much of Australia’s GDP comes from Knowledge and Services industries. Australia’s huge mining companies are transnationals with international shareholders. Thus, Sino-Australia trade has wide international implications, including if Australia were to decouple trading with China, while knowing other contributions to economy mean Australia would hurt less than the dire implications on China.
I don't get what your impling? You need to educate yourself in Australia's history.
Actually it's the USA that is China's no1 trading partner! and China has infiltrated way more in the US defence establishments than China has politicly in Australia.
Australia have pushed against Chinese threats thus suffered trade cancellations .......we do not sit on the fence nor do we sell our sole to the devil.
It's in our history.
For reference, the USA’s 3rd largest trading partner is China.
There will be plenty of security provided by the UK and America.
Australian been permanently infiltrated by u.s government, think tanks and NGO... Just sick of being American lapdog
Love everything you do. Thank you for all the great content
I like the way you give all the detailed specifications of the gear. FYI, “antipodes” is pronounced “antip-o-dies”
Thanks!! Fantastic, dealing with all aspects. Rebuts the nonsense we often hear in the MSM about how nuclear submarines are unnecessary.
The MSM also exaggerates and leaves information out. They're lying to the Australian population about the nuclear submarines. The costs, the manufacturing and operation of the vessels.
How is it sir, you can calmly and logically impart a complete explanation of the need and direction of our submarine future. We have been punished with short sightedness , ignorance and political point scoring for the past decade. Thank you for deep dive into our submarine dependence, I am literally exhilarated with this refreshing couple of hours, my deepest thanks for your very informative input.
Wow! Im a real nerd when it comes to military matters, I had no idea about how good the Dreadnought (and SSN-AUKUS) will be. You make a very persuasive case for how awesome the class will be; and how cool that parts of the UKs next SSN will have parts coming from an Australian supply chain, vice versa
Great promotion for nuclear submarines, and the nuclear cycle in general. And an heroic attempt to paint their acquisition by Australia as a fair accompli. Nevertheless, a fleet of 10 to 20 conventional subs - with AIP - would actually address Australia's defence needs, as opposed to just being a tag-along to the US strategic deterrent. And save Australia hundreds of billions.
20 AIPs is insane, they would have to be tiny German size SSKs, which would take an age to transit to their patrol areas (and in fact have to noisily run their diesels all the way in their transit to patrol area)
Small note, American nuclear vessels are classified by type, generation of the designer, then designer (i.e. S9G, being Submarine, 9th generation by General Electric) rather than how you were saying it, SG9.
Yes I was wondering if I'd got it wrong as I thought it was S9G. He may have dyslexia, most important thing is the quality of info overall imho
wow this is informative & wow does the media miss-represent military facts!
That 2 hours went by quick. Great vid!
"Go big or go home.........good on ya, Aussies"
-The God Of Procurement
we always fuck up the procurements. Why?
It’s been too long. This is much anticipated, thanks!
When I first heard that there was going to be an AUKUS Class of submarine, I assumed it would be shared between the three countries, or have much commonality. This video made it sound like the US replacement for the Virginia Class would be significantly different from the AU/UK AUKUS Class.
At present the US Navy has ordered lead in work for the Columbia class SSBN. Expect the follow on to the Virginia class SSN’s be based on Columbia
Given Virginia builds up to block VII have been programmed out to the 2040s, its likely the UK Dreadnohght programme has been a testbed for a lot of new tech the US will adopt
One of the first in line! Excellent work.
Having Australia as a friend always good. Pissing France off is just a bonus.
Especially when you can stick Australia with the bill.
@@adrien5834 The US Navy has been guaranteeing free trade on the high seas for 80 years, now.
@@dk6024 That's what you guys call it, sure. So what, Australia owes you the money for services rendered, is that your point?
@@adrien5834 was Australia coerced or blackmailed? Was the deal done in bad faith?
@@dk6024 I don't know, but I assume not. But what was your point, exactly?
Extremely informative video. Thank you for posting.
While you did point one exercise kill by the Collins class against a stationary ship, it would have been more balanced to point out that the Collins class has also scored exercise kills on SSN's hunting it on multiple occasions. While you point out that the Gotlands kill was without active sonar being used against it, you fail to mention Rankins kill was against active sonar being used by a destroyer and an SSN with helicopter support.
You miss the point, who cares if it did better on another day, Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond. Useless if you want to play with the big boys.
@@qbi4614 what has the Gotland got to do with it? The Collins is a much more capable boat.
Brilliant Video again. I had to come back a few times to complete it. The timescales of these programs are hard to grasp
Good video, I'm hoping there'll be more cooperation between the UK and Australia going forward, preferably CANZUK style military and economic cooperation with free trade and free movement.
Does the C stand for Canada?
@@mikefish8226Canada should join AUKUS, we need nuclear subs without a doubt.
Another excellent presentation thank you.
This is a good manner of information delivery.
I would like to say the amount of information constantly being given without sectioned blocks does make it either slightly confusing or slightly boring… slightly.
Came here for a nuclear sub, got a lesson on Anglo-Australian relations 😂
Please do more modern military content! I love your analysis capability! You are doing so great it is so interesting and entertaining to listen to your perspective and analysis! You can choose whatever topic or country or system doesn't matter, really, the modern stuff is so interesting. I would love to see more content in this regard!
This is so emotionally touching, as if a parent has finally reunited with their grown up child after many years of absence 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
🤡
Awesome video man.
IP and export controls exerted by nations of origin are becoming major issues as advanced weapon systems get woven into more and more militaries, driven by the war in Ukraine and Chinese aggression. Manufacturers are loathe to give up IP without compensation because sustainment then becomes competitive vs a monopoly. And countries like the US and Germany have highly restrictive export/re-export rules that are often driven not by any strategy, but by some sort of political policy. Hopefully AUKUS can resolve this stuff up front, especially as Australia locks down specs early and often!
Germany may well end up as a divided country once again, physically partly in NATO but not on the other side of the new wall.
This isn't your Dad's ITAR.
Going into AUKUS is joining what has been an exclusive club of two for almost 70 years. There will be no export of this tech from Aus to other parties.
Love your work. The old Chinese curse, ‘May you live In interesting times.’ 🇦🇺
Funnily enough, the australians should go with the french nuclear sub;
This is the most recent attack nuclear sub right now, with the very last techs, requieres a small crew due to its high level of automatisation (60 vs 110 for the Astute, and 140 for the Virginia), is smaller due to its smaller crew, hence costs much less than the US/UK current attack subs.
Plus the shipyards building them for France could start pumping out subs for australia by 2027 when their domestic production stops.
As a result, instead of 6 Virginia class subs (at an undeterminated time), which would translate in only 2 boats active at any time, the australians could have 12 to 18 Suffren Class subs, so 4 to 6 nuclear subs at sea at any time, by the early 30s (accounting that the Suffren is twice cheaper than the Astute, and 3 times cheaper than the Virginia). It would be the most recent class operational on earth, and profit from the fact that the first produced would have been tested by the french, so mature by the time the australians get them.
And the refuelling question is a non issue. Subs need heavy maintenance every 10 years or so, the french do the refuilling (a routine 3 weeks operation) during this time. And as they use low enrichment uranium, a lot of hasles disappear: Australia, like all nations on earth, already produces, uses, and manages low enriched uranium.
Outstanding ,rewarding the viewer with a broad understanding of the AUKUS program beyond the typical media coverage of the “ hurt feelings “ of the French . Capabilities , time lines and strategic threats all mandated a different solution to the one on offer from the French program and superficial review of the Australian political issues makes it clear why this was not acted on initially. Most of note however is the absolutely correct analyses of the ridiculous characterization of China as a victim of the same international world order that transformed it in 40 years from a country with limited industrial base and severe poverty to an economy nationally in contention with those of the West. The benefits of participation in this world order were afforded the Chinese despite their complete disregard for intellectual property rules , poor access to Chinese domestic markets for western companies and predatory trade practices with governments subsidies for key industries that were designed to erode overseas industrial capacities. Chinese attempts at hegemony in trade relations with many overseas trading partners awakened the world as to what the new Chinese amended rules based order would look like and their rapid military buildup has tipped their hand as to the mechanism by which they plan to amend these rules. Well done.
Sharing the technology for a nuclear powered attack submarine just shows the level of trust we in the United States have in Australia. Along with Canada we are all former members of the British Empire with a common language that almost feels like we're family, like cousins. 😄👍
England is dad.
France may have been the birthplace of the Enlightenment but Britain, the USA and the rest of the Anglophone empire have been it’s life support system and have tried to propagate a rules based order which attempts to be win / win for the participants. Any chance you could get the Kiwis to up their game a bit ?
USA refuses to sell Canada Nukes subs, and the only reason Australia got them is USA is concerned about losing power in west pacific and Australia having 1 month fuel supply. So we couldn't fight a war. USA have no choice but to give us nuke boats. Don't think you were happy about it
Australians are not fond of the ol' Empire, as our national identity was mostly formed in WWI, in which British officers had, shall we say, not the best reputation with us. WWII didn't help. But by the same token, we've never forgotten the US's involvement in the pacific (despite Douglas MacArthur). It's hard to overstate how important the two world wars are in how we see ourselves.
That's not to say we dislike the British now, much less the UK, and we haven't forgotten the good they've done.
@@some_random_wallaby this Australian
is fond of empire. We may yet need it again
This was honestly a very magnificent video, I really enjoyed watching it.
We, the UK, should have never turned our back on Australia and our other commonwealth family. CANZ have always had the UK back and we owe those countries big time.
Well grudgingly Churchills choice not to reinforce a failure (Singapore) might have been right. And our boys made Kokoda a success despite McArthurs ignorance of the mountainous jungle terrain. The relationship with the motherland was never the same. Since then we have been infatuated with all things uncle sam and briefly then looked towards China as partners. It has come full circle.
@@grosey11 UK going into the EU was the problem
@@grosey11 The question of where to direct resources was a major issue, Australia understood that if the Nazis won the battle of North Africa, conquered Egypt and cut thr Suez Canal, that would gravely endanger Australian national security and its economy. Churchill also said that ultimately if they had to choose between protecting Egypt and Australia, then Australia would come first. And pretty much as soon as Japan declared war, Australian troops in the Med were sent back and by 1942 were engaged against the Japanese Empire.
@@PosthumousAddress they weren’t sent back. It was a political furore that Churchill resisted, knowing the value of Australians as shock troops. MacArthur was on the record as having little regard for Australian troops. Insisting that they fought in backwaters and not gain unnecessary glory on the island hopping trip across the South West pacific.
I don't think the UK had much choice honestly. Today in Australia we generally understand that towards the end of WW2 it was clear that the UK was no longer a superpower and couldn't help us, and only the US could. So it was a natural transition and I have never heard of complaints that the UK abandoned us. I think the generation that may have felt that way has largely passed on.
Well, that was excellent. Thank you.
Great work. I would like your thoughts on the B21 for RAAF.
The idea of a nuclear capable bomber for the RAAF is absurd. Australia is basically become a US Neocon goon and MIC subsidizer.
You know the eukalele is a portugues guitar that's called a cavaquino brought by the portuguese late 1800 to Hawaiiand they changed the top string to a lower note
Main objection by Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and socialist left Global South, to AUKUS submarine deal and overall strategic alliance is 'interoperability'. Taken as a trinity whole, US Virginia class, US Ohio SSGN, UK RN Astute class, and future AU RAN SSN boats use similar torpedoes, and similar strike cruise missiles. With crews trained to similar level. That means that either of three's boats can take missions of another partner , as needed. So in Indo-Pacific, Chinese PLAN would not be fighting three submerged fleets. But a single large SSN force.
Appreciate your videos. Thank you.
Another component of nuclear waste generated by Australian industry is the nuclear waste that is a biproduct of extracting and refining mineral resources. Most of this refinement is done overseas (which has generated controversy). It seems likely that Australia will have to accept the burden of processing nuclear waste in some forms regardless of having a nuclear energy industry,
one good reason to get the French nuclear boats. LEU
Either that, or pay through the nose for it.
Then, there is the consideration of the ethical responsibility for responsibly disposing of that wasted- the US doesn't exactly have a great record on that front, eh?
That is a complication that I hadn't considered... (Cheers? Ugh...)
better off with French boat where that is not so much a problem, and no specialist onshore facilities required
@@alanbstard4so you want to potentially lose a war because of a few keg’s of waste? There are thousands of reactors all around the world who deal with this disposal without a problem day in day out. Speak for yourself not the rest of Australia
@@PLAYER2035 i am pro nuke sub. read my comments
Excellent work again!! Thank you sir!
Y'know what, isn't it a bit backwards that one builds a massive surface fleet, carriers and all, without a potent submarine force to protect it? To me this sounds more like a case of keeping the shipyards and industries humming, paying people wages lest they get some ideas about changing government. A bit of parade and propaganda probably doesn't hurt too. It's just their fumbling opaqueness about what they're doing, along with a fair sprinkle of face saving and court intrigues, that is endangering everybody else =="